NCL Suffers By Comparison .....

[sharonax3]

Seriously, I just read thru 8 pages about whether or not NCL puts the luggage on your bed?Yes, I do consider cruise lines as floating hotels.. Yes, they all nickel and dime you, but I will choose which nickel to spend. That is the way it should be.

 

The only thing that is different from cruising years ago to now is the quality of food.

Liquor and or soft drinks were never included, at least the lines I was on. I think the entertainment is much better now. Pricing is really good, as I can cruise now for less or about the same as I could 15 yrs ago.

 

The "extras" that some are complaining about are just choices. You don't have to buy the extras.

[swedish weave]

Seriously, I just read thru 8 pages about whether or not NCL puts the luggage on your bed?Yes, I do consider cruise lines as floating hotels.. Yes, they all nickel and dime you, but I will choose which nickel to spend. That is the way it should be.

 

The only thing that is different from cruising years ago to now is the quality of food.

Liquor and or soft drinks were never included, at least the lines I was on. I think the entertainment is much better now. Pricing is really good, as I can cruise now for less or about the same as I could 15 yrs ago.

 

The "extras" that some are complaining about are just choices. You don't have to buy the extras.

 

I agree with everything you have posted, and would like to add one more bit of food for thought.

 

The dollar figures for the cost of a cruise are less than they were when I started cruising in the late 70's, plus the purchasing power of the same dollars was more than triple the purchasing power of the dollar at the present time. Pick any item (including food) and compare the price then to now. It is no mystery why the cruise lines have had to cut down on the food cost in order to maintain the low prices that attract cruisers. Fuel is another item that has followed the same cost pattern.

[sunshine 229]

Seriously, I just read thru 8 pages about whether or not NCL puts the luggage on your bed?Yes, I do consider cruise lines as floating hotels.. Yes, they all nickel and dime you, but I will choose which nickel to spend. That is the way it should be.

 

The only thing that is different from cruising years ago to now is the quality of food.

Liquor and or soft drinks were never included, at least the lines I was on. I think the entertainment is much better now. Pricing is really good, as I can cruise now for less or about the same as I could 15 yrs ago.

 

The "extras" that some are complaining about are just choices. You don't have to buy the extras.

 

You're kidding, right?

 

Lots of things have changed, some maybe for the better some to my mind for the worse. Things like; charges for gym classes that used to be free, charges for soft drinks, even in the dining rooms, charges for some of the alternate dining venues that used to be part of the included dining options, no chocolates on the pillow (not a biggy for me, never liked those anyway but judging from the threads about it on CC, a lot of passengers did). there are other things that have changed too but those are a few that pop immediately to mind.

 

And before the NCL loyalists jump all over this in a defensive frenzy, yes, this is not exclusive to NCL other cruislines are cutting back on these things too.

[GigCrusier]

I agree with everything you have posted, and would like to add one more bit of food for thought.

 

The dollar figures for the cost of a cruise are less than they were when I started cruising in the late 70's, plus the purchasing power of the same dollars was more than triple the purchasing power of the dollar at the present time. Pick any item (including food) and compare the price then to now. It is no mystery why the cruise lines have had to cut down on the food cost in order to maintain the low prices that attract cruisers. Fuel is another item that has followed the same cost pattern.

Can you please provide some reference to your "triple the purchasing power of the dollar"? or did you just make up the number?

[swedish weave]

Boy you guys really are defensive. I am not talking about having all the things that the premium lines offer such as the much higher passenger to crew ratio, and I'm pretty sure that you know that, but are ignoring it in an attempt to make it sound as if what I am asking is ridiculous.

 

________________

 

I must dispute your statement about the passenger to crew ratio. Can you furnish any figures to substantiate that ?

 

I know that the Norwegian Star has approx 1100 crew for approx 2200 passengers. That is one crew member for every two passengers. What cruise line has a better ratio than that ?

[swedish weave]

Can you please provide some reference to your "triple the purchasing power of the dollar"? or did you just make up the number?

 

Let's start with gasoline -- Less than a dollar a gallon in the 70's and now three dollars a gallon.

[GigCrusier]

Let's start with gasoline -- Less than a dollar a gallon in the 70's and now three dollars a gallon.

I see... you have no recgonized or published satistics behind your comment, just your personal references. How about factoring in inflation? Thanks for the speedy reply.

[swedish weave]

Can you please provide some reference to your "triple the purchasing power of the dollar"? or did you just make up the number?

 

 

This should answer your inane comment.

 

Current data is only available till 2009. $296.00 in the year 2009 has the same "purchase power" as $100 in the year 1979.

The 2009 observation is preliminary and will change.

Source note for "Purchasing Power of Money"

[swedish weave]

I see... you have no recgonized or published satistics behind your comment, just your personal references. How about factoring in inflation? Thanks for the speedy reply.

 

It appears that you are up to your usual nonsense of trying to lead someone into a silly argument. I have posted the FACTS, and you will not see another response from me.

[sunshine 229]

Boy you guys really are defensive. I am not talking about having all the things that the premium lines offer such as the much higher passenger to crew ratio, and I'm pretty sure that you know that, but are ignoring it in an attempt to make it sound as if what I am asking is ridiculous.

 

________________

 

I must dispute your statement about the passenger to crew ratio. Can you furnish any figures to substantiate that ?

 

I know that the Norwegian Star has approx 1100 crew for approx 2200 passengers. That is one crew member for every two passengers. What cruise line has a better ratio than that ?

 

On a quick search before dashing off to work the "luxury lines" (my classification and based on significantly higher pricing) show between about 1 crew member for ever 1.12 passengers to about 1 crew for every 1.6 passengers.

 

Most Norwegian ships I check fluctuated between 2 and 3 passengers per crew member. It is harder to pin it down for these because you have bigger differences in the nominal capacity and the maximum capacity on the NCL ships (eg. at nominal capacity of 1742 NCL Dream has a 2.48 to 1 passenger to crew ratio, but at maximum capacityy of 2100 it has a 3 to 1 ratio.)

 

From my quick look RCCL has even worse (or I should probably say higher since some here may actually prefer a ship with fewer crew :rolleyes:) passenger to crew ratios.

 

I don't have time now to check out HAL or Carnival.

 

(As a foot note NCL Epic has about the lowest passenger to crew ratio of the NCL ships at 1.9. Epic also has its nominal and maximum passenger number listed as the same at 4200...not sure what is going on there.)

[emcelh]

You're kidding, right?

 

Lots of things have changed, some maybe for the better some to my mind for the worse. Things like; charges for gym classes that used to be free, charges for soft drinks, even in the dining rooms, charges for some of the alternate dining venues that used to be part of the included dining options, no chocolates on the pillow (not a biggy for me, never liked those anyway but judging from the threads about it on CC, a lot of passengers did). there are other things that have changed too but those are a few that pop immediately to mind.

 

And before the NCL loyalists jump all over this in a defensive frenzy, yes, this is not exclusive to NCL other cruislines are cutting back on these things too.

 

You're right.... things have changed and not always for the better. I don't think the cruiselines have a choice though. If they included the things you've mentioned then every passenger would be paying a portion of the cost, whether or not they use the service, so fares would be higher. On my last cruise I was talking to someone who mentioned that she had never paid for a yoga class on other cruises. I'm sure she did and so did everyone else. There's a cost to the cruiseline for everything they provide....someone has to pay for it. I guess airlines used the same reasoning when the decided to charge for checked bags, meals, and on some pillows and soft drinks. I'm waiting for the coin slot on the rest room door.

 

There was a time when cruise ships only had 1 restaurant and no gym or spa...none of the "bells and whistles" on ships today. There were fewer extras to charge for. Back in the 80's we cruised from LA to Mexico on Princess. The ship was the old Sitmar Fairsea. When Princess acquired Sitmar they renamed the ship Fair Princess. We paid more for that 7 day cruise than the 10 day NE/ Canada last month. Even with all the extra charges cruising is still the best vacation value out there.

[newmexicoNita]

Time for some mindless babble about society:

 

I think what bothers people is not so much the user-pay system as you describe but that it brings along lots more marketing. Yes nobody is forcing you but it feels more and more like you have to walk through a Jamaican shopping mall these days. Whether its booze, or the one day deals, spa treatments, ..... Some people go camping to get away and relax and it it getting very hard to do that on a cruise.

 

Marketing people spend a lot of money to persuade you. They analyze every psychological trick in the book. It feels like you cant enjoy anything without an upsell.

 

It also makes it very hard to forecast the total cost of the adventure because so much of it is after the fact nickle and dimes.

Tips for an example should be charged in the ticket price but they are charged after the fact. Not because its a discretionary charge. It really isn't because its somebodys wage but BECAUSE it allows them to advertise a lower initial fare and then why everybody in the service industry does it.

 

How many people really know how much they are going to spend in advance. The cruise industry likes that you dont have an exact number because they can then persuade to upsell the number and the smaller the nickel and dimes the better. After all whats $10 here and there.

 

My recent NCL cruise had a service charge of $450 for a 5 day cruise for two people that was about 75% of the cruise price. Do you think they would sell as many tickets if they included what if calculators at booking time. No way! I can see porter charges, and even entertainment charges working their way into the picture eventually to the point where all your paying for is the room.

 

Is that a typo? No matter how you tipped or who I do not understand the $450.00. 12 times 5 times 2 isn't $450.00. Even if you ate everynight is a specialty dining room and left a $10 tip you still would not come close to $450.00.

ok, I read your explanation. What you are calling a service charge in acutally on board expenses which have existed to some degree since we started cruising about 30 years ago.

[sunshine 229]

You're right.... things have changed and not always for the better. I don't think the cruiselines have a choice though. If they included the things you've mentioned then every passenger would be paying a portion of the cost, whether or not they use the service, so fares would be higher. On my last cruise I was talking to someone who mentioned that she had never paid for a yoga class on other cruises. I'm sure she did and so did everyone else. There's a cost to the cruiseline for everything they provide....someone has to pay for it. I guess airlines used the same reasoning when the decided to charge for checked bags, meals, and on some pillows and soft drinks. I'm waiting for the coin slot on the rest room door.

 

There was a time when cruise ships only had 1 restaurant and no gym or spa...none of the "bells and whistles" on ships today. There were fewer extras to charge for. Back in the 80's we cruised from LA to Mexico on Princess. The ship was the old Sitmar Fairsea. When Princess acquired Sitmar they renamed the ship Fair Princess. We paid more for that 7 day cruise than the 10 day NE/ Canada last month. Even with all the extra charges cruising is still the best vacation value out there.

 

I agree that cruiselines don't have much of a choice. Given that most passengers these days appear to make their cruising decisions based very highly on the published price, I think that once one cruiseline started replacing a number of what used to be' included' items with, 'available at extra cost' items, and publishing a lower price for the cruise, the die was cast for the industry.

 

As I've stated in previous posts, I see what is happening and I don't expect it to change. In the same way I see a lot of smaller, more service oriented business being driven under by the arrival of a Walmart in their area. Just because I see the inevitability doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

I'd like to think that one, non-premium cruiseline might try to buck the trend in the hopes of cornering the market of cruisers like me who prefer the old style cruise but, realistically, I think it would be too hard to educate customers on the features that are included on one and not the other to make them willing to pay the higher prices.

 

I do realize that even in 'the good old days' someone was paying for the the gym class and the pillow chocolates.

 

I hardly ever drink soft drinks, but it didn't bother me that I was paying part of the charge for their soft drinks, just as it doesn't bother me nowadays that I am paying part of the cost of the extra food for someone who orders two entrees and three desserts at every meal. They could have their sodas and I could have my gym classes, and we both could enjoy our cruises without keeping a running tab of all the extra charges in our heads. I guess I was just less worried about someone ending up with $2.50 more in extras than I did, than most people on this board are.

 

 

I too am waiting for the coin slot on the restroom door and I'm not looking forward to it.

And before anyone chimes in with advice...I know that I could figure out approximately how many times per day I use the washroom and calculate how much extra it will cost in bathroom fees and arrange to have the correct number of dimes or quarters with me before leaving home. Or, I could just exercise self-control, cross my legs, and refuse to use the toilet more than once a day.:rolleyes: Not my idea of a pleasant or relaxed vacation either way.

[emcelh]

I agree that cruiselines don't have much of a choice. Given that most passengers these days appear to make their cruising decisions based very highly on the published price, I think that once one cruiseline started replacing a number of what used to be' included' items with, 'available at extra cost' items, and publishing a lower price for the cruise, the die was cast for the industry.

 

As I've stated in previous posts, I see what is happening and I don't expect it to change. In the same way I see a lot of smaller, more service oriented business being driven under by the arrival of a Walmart in their area. Just because I see the inevitability doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

I'd like to think that one, non-premium cruiseline might try to buck the trend in the hopes of cornering the market of cruisers like me who prefer the old style cruise but, realistically, I think it would be too hard to educate customers on the features that are included on one and not the other to make them willing to pay the higher prices.

 

I do realize that even in 'the good old days' someone was paying for the the gym class and the pillow chocolates.

 

I hardly ever drink soft drinks, but it didn't bother me that I was paying part of the charge for their soft drinks, just as it doesn't bother me nowadays that I am paying part of the cost of the extra food for someone who orders two entrees and three desserts at every meal. They could have their sodas and I could have my gym classes, and we both could enjoy our cruises without keeping a running tab of all the extra charges in our heads. I guess I was just less worried about someone ending up with $2.50 more in extras than I did, than most people on this board are.

 

 

I too am waiting for the coin slot on the restroom door and I'm not looking forward to it.

And before anyone chimes in with advice...I know that I could figure out approximately how many times per day I use the washroom and calculate how much extra it will cost in bathroom fees and arrange to have the correct number of dimes or quarters with me before leaving home. Or, I could just exercise self-control, cross my legs, and refuse to use the toilet more than once a day.:rolleyes: Not my idea of a pleasant or relaxed vacation either way.

 

You're first paragraph here says it all. Once one did it the die was cast and its almost impossible to go back to the way it used to be. Until I retired I was involved in the travel industry all my life (mostly with air travel though. ) I saw the same thing happen in that industry. Once one airline changed their pricing strucure they all did. Now they charge for checked baggage......few people have a choice and have to pay it. Talk about decline in service..you get to the airport to check in and are directed to a kiosk to do it yourself. Getting on a plane to go somewhere used to be a treat. Now its a chore. I really don't expected to see the coin operated restroom on a cruise ship. On an airplane....wouldn't be surprised. It would be interesting if one non-premium cruise line did "buck the trend" as you said and try to bring back what once was the norm.

[nycruise]

it doesn't bother me nowadays that I am paying part of the cost of the extra food for someone who orders two entrees and three desserts at every meal.

 

It bothers me, they should charge for seconds, you'd see how fast people would loose their appetites. Seconds are a throw back to the old days when food was only available at meal times and the midnight buffet. Today with food available 24/7, I see not reason for seconds.:rolleyes:

[sunshine 229]

It bothers me, they should charge for seconds, you'd see how fast people would loose their appetites. Seconds are a throw back to the old days when food was only available at meal times and the midnight buffet. Today with food available 24/7, I see not reason for seconds.:rolleyes:

Just be patient, if things keep going the way they are now, I foresee the day when every item on the cruise menu is priced a la carte and you will all get to decide if you want to spend your money on that piece of bread or not...sounds great doesn't it...that is what choice is all about after all.

 

$100 to get on the ship and everything you do after that charged at the going rate.

[CanadianTwosome]

I am again stumped as to when these 'good old days' were when everything was included in cruises...

 

Sure, when I started cruising in 1975, much of what was available on board was included - but the reality is that there wasn't much available!! As I continued to cruise, there were changes, and gradually the industry got to where it is now, and interestingly enough, with the exception of soda, as far as I can tell, EVERYTHING that was included on that cruise in 1975 is still included when I cruise today - as well as much, much more. In addition, there are also a number of things available today that I can choose to pay for if I want to.

 

I think it's really too bad that so many people apparently have so little control over their spending decisions, or lack the ability to create and follow a budget. My 12 year old has already learned the lesson that if you spend money on one thing, you won't have it available to spend on something else. When we travel, she has a budget and has never spent all of it (and not because we buy things for her instead). She and I have had many a discussion about a purchase she is considering, and it always comes down to the concept of opportunity cost - what she may have to forego if she spends the money. We are all capable of this thought process, and 'blaming' marketers for doing their best to sell their product does not actually absolve us of the responsibility to make our own spending decisions.

 

Someone raised a question about whether anyone could really plan in advance what they were going to spend, and I can tell you that for my family, we have never exceeded my tentative budget by more than $150 (which is within predetermined allowable limits). We decide in advance what surcharge activities we intend to experience and we're aware of the service charges; other than that, the only thing we ever spend money on are alcohol and the occasional souvenir (always keeping in mind those 'allowable limits'). I have no idea what people are spending so much money on that they simply cannot plan for in advance, or keep within a preplanned limit. Do the people who have so much difficulty staying within their budget on cruises also have difficulty paying their bills at home? It's no different; a budget is a budget, and choosing to spend money on a restaurant at home when you've got perfectly good food in your own kitchen is no different than making the same decision on a cruise ship when there are numerous included options for the same meal.

 

Sorry for the rant, but the concept that marketers are responsible for people spending when they shouldn't is - in my opinion - bs. If you can't afford it, YOU know that and the marketers don't, so YOU are the one that has to say 'no'. I guess for these individuals, if someone put together a really smooth package advertising the merits of flinging oneself from a structure spanning a river, they would be helpless to resist? No matter how pretty someone makes it sound, it's still jumping off a bridge, and you know what your mom used to say about that. :cool::p

[sunshine 229]

As I continued to cruise, there were changes, and gradually the industry got to where it is now, and interestingly enough, with the exception of soda, as far as I can tell, EVERYTHING that was included on that cruise in 1975 is still included when I cruise today - as well as much, much more.

 

I think that people have already mentioned a number of things that were included "then" that aren't included now but you simply seem to ignore those posts in order to go on stating your opinion that there was nothing included then that is not still included now.

 

I'd love to hear what, in your opinion is the "much more" that is included now that wasn't included then.

[swedish weave]

 

On a quick search before dashing off to work the "luxury lines" (my classification and based on significantly higher pricing) show between about 1 crew member for ever 1.12 passengers to about 1 crew for every 1.6 passengers.

 

Most Norwegian ships I check fluctuated between 2 and 3 passengers per crew member. It is harder to pin it down for these because you have bigger differences in the nominal capacity and the maximum capacity on the NCL ships (eg. at nominal capacity of 1742 NCL Dream has a 2.48 to 1 passenger to crew ratio, but at maximum capacityy of 2100 it has a 3 to 1 ratio.)

 

From my quick look RCCL has even worse (or I should probably say higher since some here may actually prefer a ship with fewer crew :rolleyes:) passenger to crew ratios.

 

I don't have time now to check out HAL or Carnival.

 

(As a foot note NCL Epic has about the lowest passenger to crew ratio of the NCL ships at 1.9. Epic also has its nominal and maximum passenger number listed as the same at 4200...not sure what is going on there.)

 

The ratios are available at --http://travel.travelocity.com/ecruise/ShipFinder.do

 

A quick spot check shows NCL better than HAL and Carnival on the ships I checked.

[swedish weave]

You're first paragraph here says it all. Once one did it the die was cast and its almost impossible to go back to the way it used to be. Until I retired I was involved in the travel industry all my life (mostly with air travel though. ) I saw the same thing happen in that industry. Once one airline changed their pricing strucure they all did. Now they charge for checked baggage......few people have a choice and have to pay it. Talk about decline in service..you get to the airport to check in and are directed to a kiosk to do it yourself. Getting on a plane to go somewhere used to be a treat. Now its a chore. I really don't expected to see the coin operated restroom on a cruise ship. On an airplane....wouldn't be surprised. It would be interesting if one non-premium cruise line did "buck the trend" as you said and try to bring back what once was the norm.

 

The airlines don't all charge for baggage. Examples are Southwest and Jet Blue.

 

Ref the check-in kiosk at airlines. Most major markets now have self checkout.

 

We have passed the era of "service is primary". In order to keep prices down, many businesses are reducing their costs by cutting the service and frills. I don't think you willl ever see a low priced cruise line attempt to furnish the cruise they did in the past. It is simply not economically possible. NCL was losing a lot of money until the new CEO made changes

and cut out some of the money drain in order to turn the company around. Face it !! The good old days are no longer here.

[Ms belp]

I think some of you are taking your Friday night frustration out on others. If you don't care to cruise anymore, don't. It's still the most affordable vacation we can find. The food if good, the staff is friendly, the ships are clean. If I lived closer to Miami I'd be cruising more. :)

[emcelh]

The airlines don't all charge for baggage. Examples are Southwest and Jet Blue.

 

Ref the check-in kiosk at airlines. Most major markets now have self checkout.

 

We have passed the era of "service is primary". In order to keep prices down, many businesses are reducing their costs by cutting the service and frills. I don't think you willl ever see a low priced cruise line attempt to furnish the cruise they did in the past. It is simply not economically possible. NCL was losing a lot of money until the new CEO made changes

and cut out some of the money drain in order to turn the company around. Face it !! The good old days are no longer here.

 

I know Southwest and Jet Blue don't charge for checked bags. I don't disagree with anything you've said. I also understand something about the economics of business and that cuts in services are often necessary for companies to remain viable. I'm not criticizing NCL or any other cruise line. I like NCL. I was only commenting on some of the changes I've seen in the travel industry over the last 40 years and my first job with Pan Am (now there's a change......they and many other airlines are history).

 

This thread seems to be getting a bit testy. If this conversation were happening at my dinner table I'd change the subject.

[flowerchild]

The airlines don't all charge for baggage. Examples are Southwest and Jet Blue.

 

Ref the check-in kiosk at airlines. Most major markets now have self checkout.

 

We have passed the era of "service is primary". In order to keep prices down, many businesses are reducing their costs by cutting the service and frills. I don't think you willl ever see a low priced cruise line attempt to furnish the cruise they did in the past. It is simply not economically possible. NCL was losing a lot of money until the new CEO made changes

and cut out some of the money drain in order to turn the company around. Face it !! The good old days are no longer here.

 

I agree, the good old days are no longer here, but I'm ok with it. It's a sign of the times.

 

No, not all the airlines charge for luggage, but they do factor that into thier pricing. For example, Spirit was the first airline that charged for luggage, with almost every airline following suit soon after. BUT I can fly on Spirit for $9 sometimes; factor having to pay for my luggage, and it is still less expensive than the other lines you mentioned. I've checked, and still do frequently. Also, You don't have to bring 2 bags and a carry on each that you will have to pay for, you can pack carefully and keep it down to one large bag for 2 ppl and pack a personal sized bag to carry on, which is free. The choice is yours. If you are unhappy with the airlines charging for meals now, bring your own, pack a sandwich and some chips.

 

If the cruiselines or airlines need to use A la Cart pricing to make it affordable for everyone to cruise, so be it. It is up to you what is important enough for you to pay extra for. Everyones needs are different, and I prefer to have control over my costs, instead of paying a price that covers or "blankets" others' preferences. I don't want to have to pay extra on my cruise fare for services I will not be using...

 

No use crying over split milk, mass market cruiselines have all cut back on services to keep thier fares lower. If that is a real problem for some, maybe mass market lines aren't for them. I'll take NCL and the wide variety of choices I have any day, and gladly.

[sunshine 229]

 

The ratios are available at --http://travel.travelocity.com/ecruise/ShipFinder.do

 

A quick spot check shows NCL better than HAL and Carnival on the ships I checked.

 

 

Well that would have saved me sometime this morning.LOL Couldn't find Silverseas or Crystal there but it is interesting to compare the various lines and the ships within the lines...the space per passenger statistics are interesting too.

 

It looks like they have based their calculations on the ship being just about the nominal capacity not at the maximum capacity.

[GigCrusier]

It appears that you are up to your usual nonsense of trying to lead someone into a silly argument. I have posted the FACTS, and you will not see another response from me.

 

:D:D

 

Below are some additonal points to consider other than a simplistic statement that really lacks any depth. This information was obtained

@ http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/

 

 

 

The "real" price of gasoline: Gasoline cost 27 cents a gallon in 1949 compared to around $3.50 today.* How has the relative cost of buying gas changed over the last 61 years? Presented here are two tables computing the annual "real" cost using our seven indicators, one in 2009 dollars, and the other in 1949 dollars. While the two tables show the same trends, they do give a different perspective.

 

Using the 2009 table and the CPI and the GDP deflator, we see that gasoline was quite expensive in 1980 and 1981 and the cheapest in 1998 and 1999. Today, the real price using these two measures is higher than the period at the beginning of the 1980s.

 

By looking at the share of the Consumer Bundle and GDP per capita, the story is a bit different. In 1981, a gallon of gas took as much out of what the average consumer spent as $3.90 does in 2009. And as a share of GDP per capita, gas was even more expensive in those earlier days with it at over $4.60 in 1980 and more expensive in the earlier years. Both wage indexes show the prices then and now are similar.

 

The other table tells the story in a different way. Let us look at relative cost to a worker to fill up using 1949 dollars. That year the 27 cents it cost for a gallon of gas, took a certain share of the worker's wage. The interesting question is, has the cost as a share or percent of the worker's wage increased or decreased over time? The table shows that for the two wage rates and price of gasoline in other years, this cost has fallen. Since wages have increased faster than the price of gasoline, by 2009 an unskilled worker spends less than two-thirds as much, as a percent of wage, for a gallon of gasoline than the 1949 worker. For a production worker it is only half. The table shows that the $2.36 a worker paid in 2009 would be comparable to only 13 to 16 cents (in 1949 prices "share" of the wage.

 

When we use the GDP per capita, the cost has fallen faster. Looking at the table shows that a gallon of gasoline costs around 11 cents a gallon (in 1949 prices) if measured as a "share" of the GDP per capita. This is because in 1949, 27 cents was .015% of per capita GDP, while in 2007, $2.36 was .006%.

 

Finally, comparing its cost as a share of GDP, we see that in 1949 prices, it is about 4 cents. This means that a gallon gasoline was six times larger as a share of output in 1949 than it is today.

 

* The nominal price of gasoline can be class="content" found at found at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/petro.html and http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_nus_a.htm For the tables used here, I used the price of a gallon of leaded regular from 1949 to 1976, the average of the price of leaded regular and unleaded regular from 1977 to 1990 and the price of unleaded regular from 1991 to 2009.