Weak economy?/Strong sales for 2009

[Cruising89143]

Pardon the pun, but passengers will "jump ship" over to RCCL competition if their rates are lower. Right now it seems RCCL feels their best passenger resides on the other side of the Atlantic and that is who they are going after.

 

 

MARAPRINCE

 

A cruise line or any business for that matter has to price their product at what customers are willing to pay. Royal is still getting premium prices for their product. They know that there are people out there like me that will pay it. The reason that the other cruise lines are not charging more is due to the fact that they can't. It's a simple case of supply and demand. I also don't blame RCI for placing ships across the pond when they can get higher rates than here in the US. I think that RCI has people in their organization that know a little more about their business than you and I.

[negc]

Bill,

 

I would imagine if the economy is as bad as the doom and gloom crowd feels it must be, then people who previously splurged and booked a junior suite might decide they can make due with a balcony or even an oceanview. I can't imagine most of these people are going to pack up the kids and go camping. I do both, but I can't imagine wanting to only go camping. Which of course will mean that the minimum cabins will book early and the balcony and suite rooms will be available for a smallish upgrade price. Woohoo. I would imagine that you travel agents would be noticing this far more directly than I do, because I only know what I book. I am not planning on taking fewer vacations. None of us are against finding a bargain, but again, after my recent European vacation, I am definitely convinced that a cruise is still a real bargain. I can easily get meals, entertainment, room and transportation for a lot better value than what I just did. Which doesn't mean I intend to quit doing land vacations, but it does mean that I am not of the opinion that cruises are doomed. What do you think?

 

jc

I agree with you. We have friends who are heavily into camping with their RVs but they are finding that the high gasoline prices coupled with the abominable gas mileage they are getting makes this "inexpensive" vacation getting to be not so much of a bargain - and they haven't even factored into the equation the price that they paid for their campers.:rolleyes: People may look harder for bargains and may find ways to economize in the daily lives but when things are especially grim, some feel that they deserve that vacation even more than they used to. And if the cruise and travel industries weather this financial storm look for any pent up demand to increase their business and profits several fold when conditions improve. :)

I also agree with Gordon. Cruiselines are in a unique position because they have the ability to move their product to wherever they can do the most business and if that turns out to be Europe, Asia or elsewhere that is what they will do.

[Former Goalie]

I don't agree with the "there will be more cancellations at final payment" rationale posted by some in this forum.

The same booking parameters and cancellation penalties existed in the prior year. Bookings are up year over year. I don't believe that there will be a much higher than normal run rate of cancellations as final payment approaches, in spite of the weakness of the economy.

[Terpnut]

But then you are comparing two different types of vacation experiences and those who truly enjoy cruises or AI resorts are not as likely to be satisfied with renting a cottage, buying groceries, cooking their own meals, making their own beds and going out and paying extra for their entertainment. Certainly in difficult financial times, there will be some who will decide to settle for a different vacation experience, but there will still be many who feel that they deserve a more luxurious vacation and will cut other expenses in order to finance that cruise or that AI or that theme park vacation. Apparently, if we are to believe the cruiselines, advance bookings for 2009 are ahead of where they were a year ago, so only time will tell how much of a pinch they feel.

 

Bill,

 

I would imagine if the economy is as bad as the doom and gloom crowd feels it must be, then people who previously splurged and booked a junior suite might decide they can make due with a balcony or even an oceanview. I can't imagine most of these people are going to pack up the kids and go camping. I do both, but I can't imagine wanting to only go camping. Which of course will mean that the minimum cabins will book early and the balcony and suite rooms will be available for a smallish upgrade price. Woohoo. I would imagine that you travel agents would be noticing this far more directly than I do, because I only know what I book. I am not planning on taking fewer vacations. None of us are against finding a bargain, but again, after my recent European vacation, I am definitely convinced that a cruise is still a real bargain. I can easily get meals, entertainment, room and transportation for a lot better value than what I just did. Which doesn't mean I intend to quit doing land vacations, but it does mean that I am not of the opinion that cruises are doomed. What do you think?

 

jc

While yours and Bill's points are well taken, I think you've both missed the big picture. First, the economic downturn is real. For many Americans who have already stretched their credit cards and mortgages to the max, the latest economic difficulties will force them to make hard choices. Luxury vacation options, including cruises, will be hardest hit as these will be the first vacation options to be reduced or axed off most budgets. Your (and my) idea of a hard choice is whether to visit Croatia or Poland instead of Paris for our Europe vacation next year, or perhaps skipping that $400/person helicopter excursion in Alaska on our next cruise. A more typical American must choose between a cruise every 5-8 years versus going to the beach once a year. Guess what they'll choose?

 

Please remember that the cruisecritic community represents the more devoted, fanatical and affluent cruisers, and thus is not representative of the average or typical vacationer or cruiser. For example, we all consider $125-$150 per day per person to be a "bargain" or a great vacation value. Most average Americans or typical vacationers would just laugh at us.

 

The main purpose of this thread was to assess the impact of the economic downturn on cruising. While RCI has announced strong bookings for 2009, my point is that the other shoe will drop sooner or later because cruising (a moderate to high-end vacation product) is a discretionary expense that will be cut out of many people's budgets. Total discretionary spending for leisure activities in 2009 will definitely be less than that in 2008 so the vacation spending pool is shrinking. So if RCI is to continue having strong sales, it will probably have to be at Carnival's expense, but not solely by taking business from AIs or other luxury options.

[xpcdoojk]

Of course, that is a fine opinion. The fact is we are not in an economic recession, at worst we are in a period of flat economic growth. So how real the downturn is... is subject to conjecture. Even if it does become a recession all indication is that it is going to be a mild one. Clearly in the last 30 years we have had far worse economic downturns and yet cruising still exists.

 

Yes, the mortgage crisis does affect some people, but most of the people who defaulted have walked away, declared bankruptcy and left the banks stuck with some properties that they didn't want to earn, and yet, I drive thru my town everyday and guess what a new bank is opening up.

 

In other words, in my opinion, if people didn't listen to politicians and the TV anchors that they wouldn't even realize the economy was any different than last year or the year before. In other words it is not significantly different, just the tone is different because those people are trying to scare all of us into electing a new person to solve these economic problems. When, of course, they have very little ability to manage the dynamic economy, and even less aptitude for it.

 

jc

[funfamilyfun]

Our 2 promenade rooms made for a reasonably priced spring break for our family.

[negc]

While yours and Bill's points are well taken, I think you've both missed the big picture. First, the economic downturn is real. For many Americans who have already stretched their credit cards and mortgages to the max, the latest economic difficulties will force them to make hard choices. Luxury vacation options, including cruises, will be hardest hit as these will be the first vacation options to be reduced or axed off most budgets. Your (and my) idea of a hard choice is whether to visit Croatia or Poland instead of Paris for our Europe vacation next year, or perhaps skipping that $400/person helicopter excursion in Alaska on our next cruise. A more typical American must choose between a cruise every 5-8 years versus going to the beach once a year. Guess what they'll choose?

 

Please remember that the cruisecritic community represents the more devoted, fanatical and affluent cruisers, and thus is not representative of the average or typical vacationer or cruiser. For example, we all consider $125-$150 per day per person to be a "bargain" or a great vacation value. Most average Americans or typical vacationers would just laugh at us.

 

The main purpose of this thread was to assess the impact of the economic downturn on cruising. While RCI has announced strong bookings for 2009, my point is that the other shoe will drop sooner or later because cruising (a moderate to high-end vacation product) is a discretionary expense that will be cut out of many people's budgets. Total discretionary spending for leisure activities in 2009 will definitely be less than that in 2008 so the vacation spending pool is shrinking. So if RCI is to continue having strong sales, it will probably have to be at Carnival's expense, but not solely by taking business from AIs or other luxury options.

 

How likely is it that those typical vacationers who, if, as you claim, only cruise every 5 to 8 years under normal circumstances, are all due to take cruise during this economic downturn? Probably not a large enough percentage that their decision not to book this coming year will have a major effect on the well being of Royal Caribbean, Carnival or the other major cruise lines. Some of them would likely not be scheduling another cruise until this current situation is long over. You believe that cruising is a discretionary expense that will be cut out of people's budgets, while I tend to believe that it may be one of those discretionary expenses that is last to go when cuts are made. It is IMHO a legitimate difference of opinion and only time will tell which of us is more right. However, look at some of the prices that cruises are currently selling for and you will see that there are still some true bargain rates that are well below your figure of $125 to $150 pp a day. Perhaps the ratio of US vs non-US cruisers will change as long as the exchange rate for the US dollar remains unfavorable, but the cruiselines are in the business to fill berths and the beauty of their situation, as opposed to land-based vacation destinations is that they can move their ships to take advantage of that change. :)

[Maraprince]

According to statistics, only a very small portion of the population has ever taken a cruise. Higher end products (cars, cruise lines, etc.) have been relatively unaffected by the state of the economy. The wealthier end of the population has not felt the impact as greatly as the rest of us. Unfortunately, this is not the case for the majority of the population who have watched their buying power decrease substantially from a year ago or have been fired from their jobs and have to struggle to live on limited incomes. Everyone has gotten into the act trying to recoup some of their overhead costs by passing it along to the consumers -- fuel surcharges for car services/cruise lines, etc., increased bridge tolls, higher delivery charges, higher grocery prices......

 

On-board revenue declined enough to make HAL pull some ships from the NY area. Yes, people will still cruise but you can bet they will be watching what they spend once on board. The $10 store is now the $15 store. You can deny that there is an economic crisis as much as you want, but how do you explain the layoffs, the banks and mortgage companies failing, the high amount of defaults on loans, the loss of airlines, etc. Call it what you want. It is the reality today.

 

Right now the US dollar is weak in comparison with the Euro and the Yen and we are on the short end. But watch and see it start to recover and the ships will be moved once again.

 

Only time will tell if the profits are up. The bookings may be up but the bottom line is what matters at the end of the day.

 

 

MARAPRINCE

[Davey Interweb]

Of course, that is a fine opinion. The fact is we are not in an economic recession, at worst we are in a period of flat economic growth. So how real the downturn is... is subject to conjecture. Even if it does become a recession all indication is that it is going to be a mild one. Clearly in the last 30 years we have had far worse economic downturns and yet cruising still exists.

 

Yes, the mortgage crisis does affect some people, but most of the people who defaulted have walked away, declared bankruptcy and left the banks stuck with some properties that they didn't want to earn, and yet, I drive thru my town everyday and guess what a new bank is opening up.

 

In other words, in my opinion, if people didn't listen to politicians and the TV anchors that they wouldn't even realize the economy was any different than last year or the year before. In other words it is not significantly different, just the tone is different because those people are trying to scare all of us into electing a new person to solve these economic problems. When, of course, they have very little ability to manage the dynamic economy, and even less aptitude for it.

 

jc

 

I always thought the debate as to what "defines" a recession to be pretty silly. Whether or not we're technically experiencing a recession is moot; the economy is on a decidedly horrible footing already and likely to get much worse. This is not a "doom-and-gloom" attitude, rather it's one of a realistic and logical mindset. Indications such as massive job cuts, collapsing banks, a near-worthless dollar, rampant government bailouts, record foreclosures, etc. when viewed as a whole tend to lead some to a negative conclusion, and I realize these are merely symptoms of a much greater and complex problem. I'd argue that what happened 20-30 years ago has very little relevance now; we're a radically different society today.

 

Also, what do you mean by "...those people are trying to scare all of us into electing a new person to solve these economic problems"? I'm assuming that you're talking about the presidency, and although I don't profess to be a constitutional scholar, isn't it legally not possible for the nation to elect anyone other than a "new person"?

 

For what it's worth, I don't pay much attention that what any news anchor or politician has to say either.

[curley23]

I always thought the debate as to what "defines" a recession to be pretty silly. Whether or not we're technically experiencing a recession is moot; the economy is on a decidedly horrible footing already and likely to get much worse. This is not a "doom-and-gloom" attitude, rather it's one of a realistic and logical mindset. Indications such as massive job cuts, collapsing banks, a near-worthless dollar, rampant government bailouts, record foreclosures, etc. when viewed as a whole tend to lead some to a negative conclusion, and I realize these are merely symptoms of a much greater and complex problem. I'd argue that what happened 20-30 years ago has very little relevance now; we're a radically different society today.

 

Also, what do you mean by "...those people are trying to scare all of us into electing a new person to solve these economic problems"? I'm assuming that you're talking about the presidency, and although I don't profess to be a constitutional scholar, isn't it legally not possible for the nation to elect anyone other than a "new person"?

 

For what it's worth, I don't pay much attention that what any news anchor or politician has to say either.

 

Let's take a look at the realistic point here.

Unemployment is up about 1% from a year ago, granted not a great thing, but not the end of the world.

Collapsing Banks. Really only one so far, possibly more, but who knows. Worthless dollar. Blame that on D.C. the more debt we pile up, the more the dollar drops due to devaluation which reduces interest owed by the gov't.

Rampant Bailouts. Who, besides the Bear Sterns deal?

Record Foreclosures. Mostly caused by wall street and their greed with no regard for the economy. Sub Prime is at about 15% of its market, which was less than 20% of the total mortgage market. Yes the prime market foreclosures are up, but as a whole still less than 6-7%. BTW, most of the loans in foreclosure should not have ever been made to begin with, and would most likely have gone to foreclosure down the road anyway. They just would have been spread out over a much longer period of time. Unfortuately the dominos tumbled quickly. That industry needed a wake up call anyway.

Unfortunately we only are told the doom and gloom. No one tells about the success stories, or the areas of the country where there is still growth and prosperity.

I don't think we are in a rosey situation by any means, however there are still plenty of people who can afford to cruise, and will continue to do so.

[Davey Interweb]

"One bank, possibly more"? You must have missed the death of IndyMac from a couple of weeks ago; its carcass has, of course, since taken over by the federal government. Being that this was only the third-largest bank failure in US history, I can see how it would be easy to overlook but for anyone keeping score, this was the fifth such failure this year alone. All of these are quite tame compared to the woes that the embattled GSEs Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are experiencing, and - speaking of bailouts - the House authorized a $300B "rescue plan" for them just earlier this week. This particular story is far from over, I think, and might be worth paying some interest to. No pun intended.

 

Unfortunately we only are told the doom and gloom. No one tells about the success stories, or the areas of the country where there is still growth and prosperity.

 

Y'know, many times I've heard a very similar line applied to other, unrelated current events. Naturally you're hearing and reading a lot of "doom-and-gloom" in regards to the economy; the problems are absolutely as real as a heart attack and they're not going to go away if only they aren't reported on. Would you prefer, instead, for the average American Consumer to just stick their head in the sand and wait for government help that will not be forthcoming?

 

I think it's cute how you rationalize all of this, too, and a tiny part of me wishes that I was able to do the same. I see you using words like "blame" and "greed" and "should not have ever [happened]...", as if everything would be just ducky if the markets and government just stopped being a bunch of jerks and got their act together. I'd say there are core issues here that need to be addressed by most levels of society and very soon, otherwise what everyone might be facing will not be a "weak economy" or a "downturn" but rather a full-spectrum bankruptcy of an entire nation.

 

I'm not attempting to pick on or slight you or anything, and if you have some economic success stories that you'd like to share by all means please do so. In the face of Ford's announcement today that they lost yet another $9 billion on their long, winding journey into total irrelevance, I'm sure some sunnier news would be welcomed by all. I'm glad people can still cruise, too. I have a couple more of them coming up later this year myself!

[curley23]

"One bank, possibly more"? You must have missed the death of IndyMac from a couple of weeks ago; its carcass has, of course, since taken over by the federal government. Being that this was only the third-largest bank failure in US history, I can see how it would be easy to overlook but for anyone keeping score, this was the fifth such failure this year alone. All of these are quite tame compared to the woes that the embattled GSEs Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are experiencing, and - speaking of bailouts - the House authorized a $300B "rescue plan" for them just earlier this week. This particular story is far from over, I think, and might be worth paying some interest to. No pun intended.

 

 

 

Y'know, many times I've heard a very similar line applied to other, unrelated current events. Naturally you're hearing and reading a lot of "doom-and-gloom" in regards to the economy; the problems are absolutely as real as a heart attack and they're not going to go away if only they aren't reported on.

 

 

I think it's cute how you rationalize all of this, too, and a tiny part of me wishes that I was able to do the same. I see you using words like "blame" and "greed" and "should not have ever [happened]...", as if everything would be just ducky if the markets and government just stopped being a bunch of jerks and got their act together. I'd say there are core issues here that need to be addressed by most levels of society and very soon, otherwise what everyone might be facing will not be a "weak economy" or a "downturn" but rather a full-spectrum bankruptcy of an entire nation.

 

I'm not attempting to pick on or slight you or anything, and if you have some economic success stories that you'd like to share by all means please do so. In the face of Ford's announcement today that they lost yet another $9 billion on their long, winding journey into total irrelevance, I'm sure some sunnier news would be welcomed by all. I'm glad people can still cruise, too. I have a couple more of them coming up later this year myself!

 

Indymac is who I was referring to.

Let's see, spending billions on IMO, a useless war, instead of spending it here at home on building up our borders, letting our infrastructures go to hell in a handbasket, alternative energy sources, OH! and let's see, how is New Orleans doing. I guess our gov't has nothing to do with these items. How many more people would be working, paying taxes, and purchasing goods, if our resources stayed here.

As far as the greed, lets see here, We have the speculaters using oil as hedges, because right now it is better than using gold. The mortgage mess, that was created from the greed on wall st, and everyone else involved from the mortgage banker, apppraiser, real esate agent, all the way to the consumer. They all got fat wallets there, mostly based on greed, stupidity, and fraud. BTW, Our gov't has not given Fannie, or Freddie one dime as of yet. The woes there are from perception by stockholders that made a run on the bank so to speak. No one has proven they are insolvent.

As far as the car companies, again IMO, they have not kept up with the times. They are a result of their own mistakes and blunders.

For the consumer, right now, they are sticking their heads in the sand. they need to get out of the sand, and stand up and do something about it, not just let a very small percentage do it for them.

[xpcdoojk]

So, if we don't decide we are in a recession by technical means, how do we decide? Do we wait for Katie Couric or Davey Interweb to tell us?:rolleyes: The rate of unemployment has been lower during the past 7 years as compared to the previous 8, when we were told that we were in a time of great growth etc. In other words if the politics fits those of the talking heads and paid experts on tv then things are rosey, and if not then it is doom and gloom. In 2000 we went into an unreported recession, and then in 2001 we had 911 in 2002 and 2003 we went into a war footing and yet our economy has grown consistently and unemployment have been at historically low levels, and yet listen to the TV or the NY Times and you would think that we have been living in the Great Depression.

 

As an economist, I am constantly saddened by the economic ignorance of so many intelligent people including both of the new potential presidential candidates. Their ignorance is on a collosal scale.

 

jc

[Maraprince]

Long and short....

 

 

However you wish to interpret it or whatever cause you want to attribute it to, plain and simple our US dollar doesn't buy as much as it used to. The Euro and the Yen are stronger than the US dollar. Things cost more than they did just a year ago. We are spending more to get the same things that used to cost less. Whatever goes up, must come down (eventually). The marketplace will only bear so much before prices must come down. At some point, people will determine that prices do not justify the product being purchased (cruise or anything else). Food and shelter are necessities -- everything else is icing on the cake. One of the benefits that will come out of this whole situation is taking a more critical look at what is being purchased and not just plunking down the credit card to pay for it later on.

 

Only the upper level of our society hasn't felt the day to day crunch the rest of the population has. The wealthy continue to spend and continue to rake in their money while everyone else is struggling.

 

Call it whatever you, it is here and happening right now.

 

 

MARAPRICE

[xpcdoojk]

You do realize, that because the dollar is relatively valueless that our products made here are more attractive to people who buy things with Yen, Euro, Pounds, etc.? This should mean that fewer companies will locate overseas, etc. More foreign companies will open offices here since it is a relative bargain. Everything is a balance. Low dollar is bad for me, as I just went to Europe everything cost a fortune. However, last November I was flying from Chicago thru Dublin on my way to London, and my flight was full of Irish citizens loaded down with half of the inventory of Chicago stores.

 

Our interests rates are low, which is a drain on the dollar, but if you want to buy something and have reasonable credit you can. I remember the late 70s and 20% inflation and 20% interest rates and 10% unemployment. Wasn't that heaven on earth...?;)

 

Doom and Gloom, may be our future, but it doesn't have to be, and to act like it is just a matter of time til it happens is fatalistic and a waste of good effort. Not to mention selling your fellow countrymen and country short. I prefer to believe that we have no reason for panic, and history and reason to back it up.:cool:

 

jc

[CruisinHavoc]

I can only speak from where I live which is Canada. For about $1200 give or take we can go to Cuba or Dominican or Mexico stay at a 5* complex. That includes all meals, air and booze.

 

Is that per person or for a couple? And are you talking about a week-long stay? I'm just curious, because at first blush, that sounds incredilbly cheap. I've looked at all-inclusive resorts before, but never been to one, because the prices usually seem quite high to me (like $300 - 500 / night, before you even think about airfare to get there). Can you tell me some of the resorts you can get for that price. (Or do the rules here even allow you to post that kind of info?) Of course, travelling from the US, Cuba would be out.

[Lynnees]

Is that per person or for a couple? And are you talking about a week-long stay? I'm just curious, because at first blush, that sounds incredilbly cheap. I've looked at all-inclusive resorts before, but never been to one, because the prices usually seem quite high to me (like $300 - 500 / night, before you even think about airfare to get there). Can you tell me some of the resorts you can get for that price. (Or do the rules here even allow you to post that kind of info?) Of course, travelling from the US, Cuba would be out.

 

 

That is per couple and for a week. It includes air. Of course there are some super AI's that charge that amount per person but it still includes air. Even at that being per person it''s a good price.

 

I can't give you the info simply because I'm a TA and I would get my fingers slapped.

[CruisinHavoc]

That is per couple and for a week. It includes air. Of course there are some super AI's that charge that amount per person but it still includes air. Even at that being per person it''s a good price.

 

I can't give you the info simply because I'm a TA and I would get my fingers slapped.

 

That just sounds insanely cheap. When I looked at places like Cancun or Santo Domingo, it was going to cost over $1000 just for two of us to fly there.

[Lynnees]

That just sounds insanely cheap. When I looked at places like Cancun or Santo Domingo, it was going to cost over $1000 just for two of us to fly there.

 

Can you not get packages from where you live? I get packages for my clients that include everything including air at those prices. They are from Toronto. I wish I could tell you how to contact me and I would be happy to show you. I can get the pkgs from the US as well.

[bruce-r]

I don't know about "weak economy" nationally, but my personally economy is looking good for at least the next year. So, we're going cruising because it will be my DS's last Spring Vacation before he goes off to college. His opinion as to which class of ship we'll be sailing has a great deal as to which ship/cruise line we will be sailing.

[bruce-r]

I wish I could tell you how to contact me.

Don't you have your email addy in your profile?

[xpcdoojk]

I don't know about "weak economy" nationally, but my personally economy is looking good for at least the next year. So, we're going cruising because it will be my DS's last Spring Vacation before he goes off to college. His opinion as to which class of ship we'll be sailing has a great deal as to which ship/cruise line we will be sailing.

 

Historically, when asked in polls people reply that they are doing ok but they are worried about everyone else being hit by hard times. I think the simple answer is we all read the papers and watch TV and we think O those poor people are suffering so. We are all afraid it may happen to us, because how many times have we been told by the papers and TV that we are all just one pay check from disaster. Life is so good for most North Americans that we have to invent our own difficulties. There was a tv report this week about a mother and daughter who were going to have to quit eating meat because of the hard times in their Ohio economy. Funny but only in America can you have a pair of 400 pound women saying that they are going to have to quit eating meat in order to pay bills.:eek:

 

By the way I think I have Marilyn's email address so if Marilyn approves I would be happy to forward an email to her. So feel free to email me. It is in my signature. I quit worrying about spam years ago! :D

 

jc

[Lynnees]

Historically, when asked in polls people reply that they are doing ok but they are worried about everyone else being hit by hard times. I think the simple answer is we all read the papers and watch TV and we think O those poor people are suffering so. We are all afraid it may happen to us, because how many times have we been told by the papers and TV that we are all just one pay check from disaster. Life is so good for most North Americans that we have to invent our own difficulties. There was a tv report this week about a mother and daughter who were going to have to quit eating meat because of the hard times in their Ohio economy. Funny but only in America can you have a pair of 400 pound women saying that they are going to have to quit eating meat in order to pay bills.:eek:

 

By the way I think I have Marilyn's email address so if Marilyn approves I would be happy to forward an email to her. So feel free to email me. It is in my signature. I quit worrying about spam years ago! :D

 

jc

 

Thanks jc - then I can be totally innocent :p

[bruce-r]

<snip> We are all afraid it may happen to us, because how many times have we been told by the papers and TV that we are all just one pay check from disaster. <snip>

 

jc

As I work in the construction industry, I am well aware of how cyclical the economy can be. Our wage is based on the premise that we will be employed for 9 months, on average, out of 12 months. The practical advice is that we have a cash reserve of 4 to 6 months to help us thru the lean times. I am fortunate in that DW also works and makes a decent wage. That way, even if I am unemployed for an extended length of time and use up all my unemployment, we still get to keep the house. We just have less money for discretionary spending. In short, I work hard when I can, we save our money, we buy modestly, and we vacation when we want IF the trip is a decent value.

[xpcdoojk]

As I work in the construction industry, I am well aware of how cyclical the economy can be. Our wage is based on the premise that we will be employed for 9 months, on average, out of 12 months. The practical advice is that we have a cash reserve of 4 to 6 months to help us thru the lean times. I am fortunate in that DW also works and makes a decent wage. That way, even if I am unemployed for an extended length of time and use up all my unemployment, we still get to keep the house. We just have less money for discretionary spending. In short, I work hard when I can, we save our money, we buy modestly, and we vacation when we want IF the trip is a decent value.

 

Sounds like a very intelligent plan! The construction industry in our area is still strong, outside of the residential construction. Even there most of the builders are getting by as a lot of people are taking advantage of the glut of builders and their availability to do remodel jobs. Commercial construction is still rocking and rolling here.

 

jc