# The Future of the Ski Industry



## VTKilarney (Sep 24, 2014)

I had an interesting conversation with a person who runs a golf course (not in my area).  The person said that the golf course is really worried.  Memberships are way down from what they were 20 or 30 years ago, and the number of day-rate players has significantly declined.  

The theory is this: A) Golf and tennis are dying sports; and 
B) Golf is no longer consistent with people's lifestyle.  It takes 4-5 hours to play 18 holes of golf on this course.  The average family has two wage earners, and the children have sports and other activities (piano lessons, etc.) almost every day of the week.  The parents need to run errands on the weekend such as grocery shopping.  The time just isn't there.

I couldn't help but think about skiing when I heard this story.  IMHO, skiing is just too expensive for the average family to dabble in.  It's also a massive time commitment.  There are fewer and fewer feeder hills to develop a new client base.

While there will always be families with the resources and interest to commit to skiing, are other families going to continue to ski as an occasional recreational activity?  I've never felt that, for a beginner, skiing is that fun.  It doesn't really start to become enjoyable until the intermediate level.  If a family only makes a once-a-year ski trip, are their skills really developing enough to make skiing that enjoyable?

On the other hand, the economy is getting better and the ski industry has survived arguably the biggest economic challenge in the post-war era.  That suggests that the industry is indeed durable.  But this might be a product of consolidation rather than overall durability.  And taxes and fuel costs aren't getting cheaper.  And unlike golf, skiing cannot rely on the growing number of empty-nesters for its client base.

I don't think that there is doom and gloom, but on the other hand I am concerned that we may not have seen the last of ski area closures in our region.  

If I had to guess, the biggest threat to ski areas could be the build out of indoor recreational facilities.  Ten years ago I had never heard of a family with children who played baseball all year round.  That is now quite common in southern New England.  If these kids don't play in the winter leagues they get left behind.  And the typical overly-competitive parent can't handle that thought.  The same is true for soccer, hockey, etc.  If more and more of these indoor centers are constructed, more and more families are going to have a local option for winter recreational activity.  That can't be good for the ski areas.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 24, 2014)

I really don't play golf anymore.  I have not played a round this year.  MTB is better excercise and more exciting.  And also less frustrating.  The rise in blood pressure and hear rate in MTBing better for you than golf's.


----------



## mriceyman (Sep 24, 2014)

Puck it said:


> I really don't play golf anymore.  I have not played a round this year.  MTB is better excercise and more exciting.  And also less frustrating.  The rise in blood pressure and hear rate in MTBing better for you than golf's.



Yea but in golf drinking and smoking is encouraged lol


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## jimk (Sep 24, 2014)

I don't think skiing's forecast is all that dim.  Just go to place like WaWa on a busy winter weekend and it will restore your faith  For many under age 25 I think skiing/snowboarding is pretty fun even on the first day unless they are a real klutz or catch a brutally cold day.  The bargain tracking features of boards like AZ show that even buying day tickets a la carte can be reasonable if you have the least bit motivation to search for deals.  
I'm like Puck It about golf.  I've had to make choices with my leisure time and skiing won over golfing.  I actually started playing golf as a ten year old with my Mom, a couple years before I ever went skiing and have played up to 25 rounds per year when I had a club membership in my early 20s, but recently I'm down to about one round every two years - sad.   I might get into it again as an old timer, but would need close access to an affordable venue.  There are a lot more golf courses than ski areas and I think there was a huge over-build about 5-15 years ago when everyone saw Michael Jordan and Tiger playing golf and thought every man woman and child in America was going to pick-up the sport?!?  Although there are many similarities, I'm not sure I'd link the fates of golf and skiing too closely.  I do agree that indoor activities (web surfing and all things electronic) are taking a bite out of the active outdoor sports customer base.  Fortunately, in my lifetime I don’t think any technological, fiscal, or climate reasons will be negative enough to kill off skiing.  After that if future generations choose to expend their leisure time doing something virtual instead of real that's up to them.


----------



## St. Bear (Sep 24, 2014)

I think golf and skiing are very similar, and while participation may decline in the overall population over time, they're not going to go away by any means.

Participation in everything is declining.  Kids don't play baseball as much as they used to, afterschool activities (drama, debate, etc) are down, and the US is no longer half of the world's GDP.  Things change, but that doesn't automatically mean it's a bad thing.


----------



## mister moose (Sep 24, 2014)

Things that have changed since I learned to ski:
*Lawyers.*
*Insurance.*
*Energy costs.*
*Expectations*.  Used to be when it snowed, you ski.  If it was a brown Christmas, you didn't ski.  Now everyone demands a season from mid November to late April.  That capital requirement to achieve that dependability puts the little guy (small feeder hill with small client base) right out of business.
*Kid focused parents.*  My grandparents were of the "seen and not heard" approach to kids.  Now the program sports drive the parents' schedule all year long.  Schools are more rigid on days out of school, some schools fine parents for too many missed days.
*Tier pricing*.  Used to be the price was the price.  Now the walk up rate is the rape and pillage rate.  If you're a beginner, you don't know where to get the deals, or that they even exist.  Tier pricing discourages beginners.

However:
Skiing was never cheap.  It was never a sport of the masses like driveway basketball.  You had to work at it, and only relatively few did it.  It wasn't easy to learn - but that didn't make it less fun.   These things haven't changed.  It isn't a growth industry.  When I was a teen, and asked other people why they didn't ski, the usual answer was "No way, I don't want to break my leg."  That perception hasn't changed either.  Some feeder hills survive - Look at Bousquet's, Otis RIdge, Blandford.

What else has changed?  At least from my point of view, the number of people who look at Otis Ridge (Ancient lifts, 400' vertical, limited snowmaking) and say "What a dump, I'm going to MT Snow, that's a real ski resort" and then gag on the price, and don't go anywhere.  There is too much reliance on 'resort', and not enough on skiing.  Too  much reliance on others, and not enough on self reliance.

When was the last time learning to ski was on the front page of Ski magazine with a photo of a feeder hill?


----------



## Smellytele (Sep 24, 2014)

While skiing is more of a family outing, golf still seems to be a get away from the family thing.  I get out for about 5 or 6 rounds a year. Usually a week day evening after work with the guys. I enjoy playing but once I had kids in sports time just isn't there to play much. I still ride my bike 2 or 3 times a week (used to be 5-6 days a week) and would much rather do that then play golf. Variety though is the spice of life!


----------



## 4aprice (Sep 24, 2014)

Difference between golf and skiing is that skiing can be a family sport/recreation.  Generally the "family" does not go out golfing.  I gave up golf because of this and got into boating because we could do it as a family.  The wife and I do play tennis but the kids have never taken to it, but tennis at the most (not talking US Open here) takes an hour and 1/2, not 1/2+ the day.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 24, 2014)

From my late teens through my late 20s, I played golf a fair bit.  About once a week during the season.  I enjoyed the game, but wasn't in love with it like skiing.  I think I enjoyed the social aspect of it more than anything.  Then I moved to a new place and didn't have any golfing buddies, so I basically stopped playing.  

If my wife was into it, maybe I'd still be playing.  She prefers tennis, so I picked that up and have grown to love it almost as much as skiing.  I can get twice the work out in in an hour playing tennis than I could walking 18 holes of golf over 5 hours.   

Tennis is a sport that I don't understand why the participation numbers are so low.  It has about as cheap of an entry point as you can get.  There are free to use public tennis courts everywhere.  You can literally get shoes, a racket and some balls for under $50 if you wanted to.   You can also spend $100+ on shoes and $200+ on a racket, but you don't have to.   Maybe it's because it requires two people to participate.  If my wife's tied up, I still head down to the courts and I'll work on my serve or there is also a hitting wall you can work on your game with.  Eventually, I'll probably pick up a ball machine if I find a good deal.


----------



## Smellytele (Sep 24, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> From my late teens through my late 20s, I played golf a fair bit.  About once a week during the season.  I enjoyed the game, but wasn't in love with it like skiing.  I think I enjoyed the social aspect of it more than anything.  Then I moved to a new place and didn't have any golfing buddies, so I basically stopped playing.
> 
> If my wife was into it, maybe I'd still be playing.  She prefers tennis, so I picked that up and have grown to love it almost as much as skiing.  I can get twice the work out in in an hour playing tennis than I could walking 18 holes of golf over 5 hours.
> 
> Tennis is a sport that I don't understand why the participation numbers are so low.  It has about as cheap of an entry point as you can get.  There are free to use public tennis courts everywhere.  You can literally get shoes, a racket and some balls for under $50 if you wanted to.   You can also spend $100+ on shoes and $200+ on a racket, but you don't have to.   Maybe it's because it requires two people to participate.  If my wife's tied up, I still head down to the courts and I'll work on my serve or there is also a hitting wall you can work on your game with.  Eventually, I'll probably pick up a ball machine if I find a good deal.



Well as far as tennis is concerned you live in an area where there maybe courts - southeast NH. Most towns north and west of Manchester do not (My town does have courts, well the college does)


----------



## DoublePlanker (Sep 24, 2014)

I wonder about video games and tablets.  It seems like kids these days are so focused on that.   Time management seems like an issue for society in general.

I know I was a get in line before the lift starts ski until lifts close kid/teenager.   Now, I like that HSQ can give me 10 runs in 2 hours so I can be back home to get other stuff done.

I think feeder hills are important.  I have an 18 month boy who will be going to McIntyre this winter and maybe Crotched/Pats Peak.  He will get those skis on!  I hope he loves the sport as much as I do.


----------



## joshua segal (Sep 24, 2014)

I tend to agree with many postings. Bowling is certainly a dying sport.  Can golf and skiing be that far behind?

VTKilarney suggests that the full day commitment of both skiing and golf is too much in our society today.

"mister moose" suggests: "Things that have changed since I learned to ski: Lawyers. Insurance. ..."

I don't know how long "mister moose" has been skiing, but lawyers and insurance have been a reality of the industry since Sunday vs. Stratton in 1978.  The truth is liability insurance adds only in the neighborhood of 5% to the cost of a lift ticket.

One major change is the fact that ski areas have large financial investments (with debt) in the hills and economically, can't tolerate a "brown Christmas".  Snowmaking and its high cost is the result.  Estimates are that close to 40% of the price of the lift ticket is for snowmaking and grooming.

That's not what puts the little guy (small feeder hill with small client base) right out of business.  It is the willingness of the owners of these places to keep them going.  Nashoba Valley is an example of a small area that made a mountain out of the "mole-hill".  I don't know if it is true, but I have heard: There is tremendous pressure to sell the ski area for real estate development - and that no one wants to buy it to run it when the present owner decides to call it quits.  It will be interesting to see how Woodbury fairs following the death of its owner this year.

Now, for all my disagreement with what "mister moose" he is spot on with the following:
"Skiing was never cheap. It was never a sport of the masses like driveway basketball. You had to work at it, and only relatively few did it. It wasn't easy to learn - but that didn't make it less fun. These things haven't changed." 

The problem is, 40 years ago skiing and skating (hockey/figure) were about it for the winter sports dollar.  Now we have X-C, indoor tennis, climate-controlled skating places, indoor tennis, indoor swimming, etc. all competing for the winter sports dollar.


----------



## mister moose (Sep 24, 2014)

joshua segal said:


> I don't know how long "mister moose" has been skiing, but lawyers and insurance have been a reality of the industry since Sunday vs. Stratton in 1978.  The truth is liability insurance adds only in the neighborhood of 5% to the cost of a lift ticket.


5% is a lot in any business.  And how much more to pay for everyone else's liability insurance, like the lift manufacturer, which is built into the purchase price?  And to answer your question, I was skiing a while before 1978.



joshua segal said:


> One major change is the fact that ski areas have large financial investments (with debt) in the hills and economically, can't tolerate a "brown Christmas".  Snowmaking and its high cost is the result.  Estimates are that close to 40% of the price of the lift ticket is for snowmaking and grooming.


40%  Really?  Sounds high to me.  But anyway, you are illustrating my point.  Cheaper lift tickets come from lower snowmaking costs, and the related shorter season and more dependence on natural snow.  Town ski hills with rope tows existed for years with this compromise.  Now most are gone.



joshua segal said:


> That's not what puts the little guy (small feeder hill with small client base) right out of business.  It is the willingness of the owners of these places to keep them going.  Nashoba Valley is an example of a small area that made a mountain out of the "mole-hill".  I don't know if it is true, but I have heard: There is tremendous pressure to sell the ski area for real estate development - and that no one wants to buy it to run it when the present owner decides to call it quits.  It will be interesting to see how Woodbury fairs following the death of its owner this year.



This varies by location.  Obviously if a ski hill gets built in the boonies for cheap, and the population swells to where the land is more valuable as an office park or housing development than a ski hill, owners may elect to sell at some point.  That is different than their current profitability as a result of industry trends.  Example:  If Okemo was gone tomorrow, Ludlow would have zero demand for additional housing.  The land would not get developed for houses.


----------



## joshua segal (Sep 24, 2014)

Continuing my banter with "mister moose":

We're talking about small feeder areas and you bring up Okemo?  Westford was already well on its way to boom-town status when Nashoba Valley set up shop.

Mister moose said, "Cheaper lift tickets come from lower snowmaking costs, and the related shorter season and more dependence on natural snow."

That statement is just plain untrue.  Taxes have to be paid based on 12 months a year.  Depreciation is based on 12 months a year.  The more those costs can be amortized over a longer season, the better it is for both the ski area and its employees.  Killington management has told me they are profitable through the end of April.  Most areas turn off the lifts when the customers (read: cash-flow or profitability) disappear, which is usually 2-weeks before the snow disappears.


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 24, 2014)

I'd like to open by saying that OP is an idiot.  Skiing is not golf.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/19/sports/golf/in-a-hole-golf-considers-digging-a-wider-one.html


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 24, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> I'd like to open by saying that OP is an idiot.  Skiing is not golf.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/19/sports/golf/in-a-hole-golf-considers-digging-a-wider-one.html


No shit, Sherlock.  That's why I didn't compare it to golf.  I used the golf story as an introduction to my thoughts that were particular to skiing's challenges.  But why let facts get in the way of an opportunity to be an asswipe, eh?

Oh, and by the way.  You linked to an article that talks about golf having problem's because post-baby boomers are not adopting the sport in the same manner.  You state that the two sports are not comparable.   Well, when it comes to skiing, you are an idiot: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/ski/2010-04-10-ski-resorts-baby-boomers_N.htm


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 24, 2014)

Puck it said:


> *I really don't play golf anymore.  I have not played a round this year*.



Me neither, and I love the game and used to golf a lot.  Golf is not necessarily in crisis mode, but the trends are disturbing.  This one I think is easy to over-think though, I just think it has to do with the fact it's increasingly expensive, with $75 greens fees becoming the norm.  That and weekend demands like VTK noted.



VTKilarney said:


> *the economy is getting better *



If you have a very loose definition of "better" and set a low-bar, then this is true.  But the reality is the economy is still in the crapper, (real) unemployment is still high, underemployment is still high, wages have stagnated for years, income is down a WHOPPING 8% in the last 6 years, job creation parsed out is low-wage and disproportionately part-time versus historical norms, the housing sector is slowing, student loan debt is at all-time highs, I could go on and on.  The economy is poor.



mister moose said:


> *When was the last time learning to ski was on the front page of Ski magazine with a photo of a feeder hill? *



Last time?   That's actually happened before?



deadheadskier said:


> *Tennis is a sport that I don't understand why the participation numbers are so low.  It has about as cheap of an entry point as you can get.*  There are free to use public tennis courts everywhere.



This was my main sport growing up.  It's not nearly as cheap as you think it is.  It's like playing the violin, you need lessons if you reasonably expect any level of success, and lessons arent cheap.  You also need a minimum of 2 racquets (3 really), and depending on where you live, free courts can be clogged.  You'll burn through several pairs of tennis sneakers per year if you really want to nit-pick. Also, winter.  Winter comes and you're paying hourly court rates = not cheap.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 24, 2014)

I've played three times a week this summer on the same shoes, that's not a problem for me.  I took a few lessons as a kid, but am largely self taught.  My wife is 100% self taught and she's gotten pretty good.  Granted it's taken her 6 years to get there.  I've never felt the need for more than the one $40 Prince racket I bought at Olympia sports.  The only recurring cost for me are balls.  We've gone through about 10 cans this summer.  

Yet, we have a blast when we play.  Winter comes I ski unless I'm visiting my folks in Florida.  It is a summer activity for me, just like golf is for most people.

It's really a dirt cheap activity for the average person.


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 24, 2014)

I think his point DH was are you rocking 10 year old skis, using the same boots for a similar period of time, etc? Sure you can do it, but like skiing, if you decide you really like the sport you are probably spending more money than you say.


----------



## Edd (Sep 24, 2014)

Interesting recent story on Real Sports about the future of golf:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QFEYC4Z44v0


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 24, 2014)

I'm hoping someone who picked up skiing as an adult can answer this, since I started as a kid:

"How did you get into the sport?"
"How did you figure out what equipment and gear you needed?"
"Where was the first place you skied?"
"What were your first impressions?"
"How much did everything cost?"

The reason I bring this up, is because, as we all know, skiing is not a cheap sport. And I think skiing has a MUCH higher potential to make a poor first impression than other sports.

Lets say someone in Mass sees an ad for Wildcat. They head up there, and don't understand the concept of layers, and end up freezing their ass off and swearing off skiing forever. I can't see how you can make a poor first impression in regards to the way you dress with golf.

I'm not a golfer, I don't know how much it costs to play if you have to rent everything vs skiing if you have to rent everything. I don't know what ski shops let people rent these days either in terms of ski clothes. The majority of people don't like the cold, so if it is an especially cold day for skiing, that person may not want to try again unless they absolutely fall in love with the sport the first time. 

I try to ski weekdays at all costs, but if I ski on the weekend, I prefer the temps between -5 and 10, because that is still bearable for me, and there are noticeably less crowds, which goes to show most people won't voluntarily put themselves out in that weather. 

I'm being somewhat extreme in using Wildcat as an example, but this is just to illustrate the end of the spectrum that a skier could fall on when skiing for the first time.


----------



## mister moose (Sep 24, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> Lets say someone in Mass sees an ad for Wildcat. They head up there, and don't understand the concept of layers, and end up freezing their ass off and swearing off skiing forever. I can't see how you can make a poor first impression in regards to the way you dress with golf.



If you grew up in New England, and don't know how to dress to be outdoors in the winter, you probably never did this, and don't have the inner child to be a skier.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 24, 2014)

mister moose said:


> If you don't know how to dress to be outdoors in the winter, you probably never did this:



LOL Did that all the time, along with snow bank igloos. 

I grew up outside of Boston though, so I only had 2 layers on max, which wouldn't work for wildcat on a "typical" day.


----------



## Domeskier (Sep 24, 2014)

The future of golf, like skiing, lies in the proliferation of domes.


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 24, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> I'm hoping someone who picked up skiing as an adult can answer this, since I started as a kid:
> 
> "How did you get into the sport?"
> "How did you figure out what equipment and gear you needed?"
> ...




This is a stupid analogy. If someone has a bad day skiing since they were cold, they were never going to enjoy it in the first place. They dont like winter. 

You really like to overthink things.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 24, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> This is a stupid analogy. If someone has a bad day skiing since they were cold, they were never going to enjoy it in the first place. They dont like winter.
> 
> You really like to overthink things.



I don't think you get the meaning of "first impressions"

I use wildcat as an extreme example. Everytime I went there it was below 0 at the summit, which that skier may take as the standard for all resorts. Most causal skiers don't ski when it's below 0.


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 24, 2014)

Your analogy still sucks. 

Cold and skiing are hand in hand. Saying someone had a bad first impression because of it is just dumb. That person most likely isn't going skiing in the first place. Thats the point, not whatever mountain you chose to put in there.


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 24, 2014)

I think it's a fair analogy in that a newbie who books a weekend in advance is going to have a bad impression if the weather turns out to be sub-zero.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 24, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> I think his point DH was are you rocking 10 year old skis, using the same boots for a similar period of time, etc? Sure you can do it, but like skiing, if you decide you really like the sport you are probably spending more money than you say.



I'm really not.  Four year old racket I got for $40.  It's been restrung once and had the grip redone once.  Second set of shoes.  Other than that it's just balls.  Wife and I try to get out there 2-3 days a week to rally for an hour or so.  Nothing competitive, just fun.  90% of the tennis players I see (I mainly play at the rec area in your hometown of Exeter) don't play matches, they just bang a ball around.  When the wife isn't into it, I'll head to the courts like I did tonight and work on my serve for an hour. 

I'm pretty content just to keep it simple and inexpensive.  I may someday get a ball machine, which cost big bucks.  If I had more people to play with, that wouldn't be necessary.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 24, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> * Four year old racket I got for $40.  It's been restrung once and had the grip redone once.  Second set of shoes.  Other than that it's just balls.*



Lol.  We're talking about two WAY different sports. 

   Yes, tennis CAN be cheap, and that's great, but I was approaching it from the standpoint of someone who's into it and takes it seriously.  You 100% need two racquets (3 really), because once you get pretty good you start to break strings somewhat commonly from the swing speed and (mostly) from the topspin you're generating.  Topspin wears away at the strings.  Think of taking a knife and quickly just barely brushing against a wire, after a while that wire will fray.   And even if you didnt break a string, you'd restring it after a while, because when you get advanced you can tell approximately how many pounds of pressure the stings are strung at, and each racquet needs to the constant for your game (looser for more power, tighter for more control).  Grips? If you're playing 8 hours a week, those grips get dank and nasty pretty quick (though that's not too much of an expense).


----------



## goldsbar (Sep 24, 2014)

mister moose said:


> *Kid focused parents.*  My grandparents were of the "seen and not heard" approach to kids.  Now the program sports drive the parents' schedule all year long.  Schools are more rigid on days out of school, some schools fine parents for too many missed days.



This one.  I have a 6 and 9 y/o.  Many parents are already deep into the whole "travel" sport thing at these ages.  Worst part is many of the kids are just mediocre, but the parents wrap their lives around driving them town-to-town to sit on the bench.  This trend needs to change for skiing to become more popular - good luck!


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 24, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Lol.  We're talking about two WAY different sports.
> 
> Yes, tennis CAN be cheap, and that's great, but I was approaching it from the standpoint of someone who's into it and takes it seriously.  You 100% need two racquets (3 really), because once you get pretty good you start to break strings somewhat commonly from the swing speed and (mostly) from the topspin you're generating.  Topspin wears away at the strings.  Think of taking a knife and quickly just barely brushing against a wire, after a while that wire will fray.   And even if you didnt break a string, you'd restring it after a while, because when you get advanced you can tell approximately how many pounds of pressure the stings are strung at, and each racquet needs to the constant for your game (looser for more power, tighter for more control).  Grips? If you're playing 8 hours a week, those grips get dank and nasty pretty quick (though that's not too much of an expense).



You are talking about a very small percentage of competitive players; likely those who belong to a club.

I'm just talking recreational tennis - banging a ball around.  Like I said, I get out there a few days a week, get some exercise and have fun.  The vast majority of people I see are just like me; not wannabe Rafael Nadals.

Kind of like how the vast majority of skiers don't have the latest and greatest equipment and aren't trying to become the next Bode Miller.  You see a lot of ten year old gear on the hill in New England.


----------



## machski (Sep 24, 2014)

I think skiing can still thrive in this era.  But this will depend on if people still want to enjoy the outdoors in the winter.  Granted there are alternatives like snowshoeing, x-c, snow biking, biathlon and I guess even snowmobiling.  From a resort standpoint, many of these can go together and be marketed as a total package.
As far as learning to ski, we are starting to see some evolution here.  Cranmore started using shaped learning terrain to keep it fun and keep newbies upright day 1.  They took park elements (ramps, rollers and pipes) and scaled them way back to contour terrain and allow a constant but easy flow with built in speed brakes.  That is kind of cool!


----------



## 4aprice (Sep 24, 2014)

machski said:


> As far as learning to ski, we are starting to see some evolution here.  Cranmore started using shaped learning terrain to keep it fun and keep newbies upright day 1.  They took park elements (ramps, rollers and pipes) and scaled them way back to contour terrain and allow a constant but easy flow with built in speed brakes.  That is kind of cool!



It's called terrain based teaching and its at several places.  It's designed to take the fear factor out and its got good points.  

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 24, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Lol.  We're talking about two WAY different sports.
> 
> Yes, tennis CAN be cheap, and that's great, but I was approaching it from the standpoint of someone who's into it and takes it seriously.  You 100% need two racquets (3 really), because once you get pretty good you start to break strings somewhat commonly from the swing speed and (mostly) from the topspin you're generating.  Topspin wears away at the strings.  Think of taking a knife and quickly just barely brushing against a wire, after a while that wire will fray.   And even if you didnt break a string, you'd restring it after a while, because when you get advanced you can tell approximately how many pounds of pressure the stings are strung at, and each racquet needs to the constant for your game (looser for more power, tighter for more control).  Grips? If you're playing 8 hours a week, those grips get dank and nasty pretty quick (though that's not too much of an expense).



Just on a side note, from all my gear I could put together a completely high end skis/boots/bindings/poles setup that I paid about $250 for.  My normal ski/binding setups range from $100-$500, with most around $300-$350, mostly high end sandwich construction midfats/fats and metal high din race bindings.  Boots used be about $200, but I'm into my current pair for about $500 over time.  Poles (scott series 4, the best ever) about $30-$50.  Dropped about $1500 last year on various gear including multiple pairs of skis, bindings, poles, clothes, tuning supplies, and a current year pair of boots.  Nothing this year.

Between lifts, lodging and transportation, I'll probably pay about $60-$70 per day this year even while trying to cut back on costs, which really does add up.


----------



## snoseek (Sep 24, 2014)

As someone that's been working at clubs for the better part of the past two decades I can tell you that the decline is noticeable...but some of that is due to a boom back awhile ago, much of it driven by real estate. The bubble burst for sure. Skiing is similar maybe? 

People are also glued to there games/facebook/iphone. I feel like this is going to be a trend going forward.


----------



## mister moose (Sep 24, 2014)

joshua segal said:


> Continuing my banter with "mister moose":
> 
> We're talking about small feeder areas and you bring up Okemo?  Westford was already well on its way to boom-town status when Nashoba Valley set up shop.



Obviously Okemo is not an example of a feeder hill.  I used it as an example of an area that is not going to get sold any time soon to be a subdivision.  Just like Storrs Hill in Lebanon, see below.  Plenty of land around it, no development pressure.  Not the case with Woodbury CT, that is prime real estate.  I'm not familiar with Nashoba Valley.  The larger point is that development is not threatening all ski areas, just those that are not on public land, and are near enough to large populations to create development pressure.




joshua segal said:


> Mister moose said, "Cheaper lift tickets come from lower snowmaking costs, and the related shorter season and more dependence on natural snow."
> 
> That statement is just plain untrue.  Taxes have to be paid based on 12 months a year.  Depreciation is based on 12 months a year.  The more those costs can be amortized over a longer season, the better it is for both the ski area and its employees.  Killington management has told me they are profitable through the end of April.  Most areas turn off the lifts when the customers (read: cash-flow or profitability) disappear, which is usually 2-weeks before the snow disappears.



Nice list of unrelated statements, but your first one is blatantly wrong.  And you clearly have no clue on managing costs in a business to keep prices down.  So let me school you a little:

Cochrans, VT, $20 lift ticket, T-bar, 350 feet vertical.
Northeast Slopes, VT, $15 lift ticket, T-bar, 360 feet vertical.
Storrs Hill, NH, $10 lift ticket, Poma-lift, 300 feet vertical.

Killington, VT  $92 lift ticket, chairs and gondolas, 3,050 vertical.

Now pay attention, there will be a test at the end.

The OP said:


> IMHO, skiing is just too expensive for the average family to dabble in. It's also a massive time commitment. There are fewer and fewer feeder hills to develop a new client base.



Which hills of the 4 above is a 'feeder hill'?  
Which hill has a lower lift ticket?
Which hill has cheaper lifts, less snowmaking, fewer operating days per week, and a shorter season?
Which hills are more affordable for a family to learn on?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 24, 2014)

goldsbar said:


> This one. * I have a 6 and 9 y/o.  Many parents are already deep into the whole "travel" sport thing at these ages.*  Worst part is many of the kids are just mediocre, but the parents wrap their lives around driving them town-to-town to sit on the bench.  This trend needs to change for skiing to become more popular - good luck!



I think this is the biggest difference in sports now from when I was a kid.  The travel is crazy.  I dont even understand why it's necessary until they're teens.



deadheadskier said:


> *You are talking about a very small percentage of competitive players; likely those who belong to a club.*
> 
> I'm just talking recreational tennis - banging a ball around.  Like I said, I get out there a few days a week, get some exercise and have fun.  The vast majority of people I see are just like me; not wannabe Rafael Nadals.
> 
> Kind of like how the vast majority of skiers don't have the latest and greatest equipment and aren't trying to become the next Bode Miller.  You see a lot of ten year old gear on the hill in New England.



No, not at all.   Anyone who's into tennis would be just like that, even at a recreational level, yes certainly club too, and any high school tennis players as well or any younger kids taking lessons.  It's the same with this ski board, most people on this board aren't on "ten year old gear on the hill".  The tennis folks you're talking about just want to hit a tennis ball 5 or 6 times per year (likely around Wimbleton & the US Open, which is when the public courts are clogged), I guess they'd be comparable to the 1 or 2 time-per-year skiers who are still on straight skis and (GASP) rear-entry boots.  They're still having fun, but they're certainly not invested in the sport.



mister moose said:


> Cochrans, VT, $20 lift ticket, T-bar, 350 feet vertical.
> Northeast Slopes, VT, $15 lift ticket, T-bar, 360 feet vertical.
> Storrs Hill, NH, $10 lift ticket, Poma-lift, 300 feet vertical.
> 
> *Killington,* VT  $92 lift ticket, chairs and gondolas,* 3,050 vertical.*



_*CORRECTION:*_  Killington's real, skiable, enjoyable, vertical, is closer to only 1,650 feet (even less than Okemo).    

Don't spread Killington's marketing lies.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 24, 2014)

Well then, the tennis demographic is different down by you than what it is here.  I can only report what I see on the courts on the NH seacoast.  Hacks like me with cheap equipment getting a little exercise.  That's 90% of what you see.  People looking for cheap affordable exercise / entertainment.

And I guess my high school was different than where you play.  Not a single player on the varsity tennis team had more than one racket.  I played JV one year, but we all practiced together.   The coach had a spare if someone broke a string at a match.  And there were some really impressive players on the varsity squad, one got a scholarship for his game. 

You really don't have to go pro like you say and get a bunch of rackets and fancy Agassi clothing.  

You can do it cheap and have fun.  That is what I was questioning.  With how affordable it is, why don't more people participate.


----------



## mister moose (Sep 24, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> ...marketing lies.



Ah, but you repeat yourself.

If you go with 'enjoyable vertical', (whatever that Gomezerism means) Storrs Hill is zero.  We're talking about beginners here.


----------



## jimk (Sep 25, 2014)

Originally Posted by mister moose  
Kid focused parents. My grandparents were of the "seen and not heard" approach to kids. Now the program sports drive the parents' schedule all year long. Schools are more rigid on days out of school, some schools fine parents for too many missed days.

Originally Posted by goldsbar
This one. I have a 6 and 9 y/o. Many parents are already deep into the whole "travel" sport thing at these ages. Worst part is many of the kids are just mediocre, but the parents wrap their lives around driving them town-to-town to sit on the bench. This trend needs to change for skiing to become more popular - good luck!

===========================================
I'm 20+ years ahead of you guys.  This mindset of "fill every spare minute of your kid's lives with activities" was hitting stride back then too.  It was the start of helicopter parenting.  My parents were from the greatest generation, which followed the "fire and forget" school of parenting  I never got into micro-managing my kids extracurricular activities and I used to feel a little guilty about that.  I had three dainty daughters and a wife that weren't into sports.  My son was fairly athletic, but not into competition.  Skiing was the unifier in our leisure time that all in the family could do across the spectrum of mellow to intense.  Since I've always been into participatory sports and exercise I was definitely not going to switch to primarily a spectator role if I could help it when it came to spending my time outside my work (cube dwelling pencil pusher).


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 25, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Well then, the tennis demographic is different down by you than what it is here.  I can only report what I see on the courts on the NH seacoast.  Hacks like me with cheap equipment getting a little exercise.  That's 90% of what you see.  People looking for cheap affordable exercise / entertainment.
> 
> And I guess my high school was different than where you play.  Not a single player on the varsity tennis team had more than one racket.  I played JV one year, but we all practiced together.   The coach had a spare if someone broke a string at a match.  And there were some really impressive players on the varsity squad, one got a scholarship for his game.
> 
> ...



Dude, sports for kids these days is way different. 

I know for a fact in Seacoast NH if you want to play soccer at a high level you are expected to play year round, travel etc. 

Same for baseball, swimming, etc. 

The kids you are talking about back in your day wouldn't even make a tryout cut these days. Sad fact.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 25, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> Dude, sports for kids these days is way different.
> 
> I know for a fact in Seacoast NH if you want to play soccer at a high level you are expected to play year round, travel etc.
> 
> ...



The only reason I even mentioned  high school is because he brought up how all the kids have to have 2-3 rackets.  Well, they didn't 20 years ago and at least one kid on the team was good enough to get a college scholarship. 

and again, you and BG are both taking things to the extreme

I'm talking recreational tennis for adults.  What I've seen everyday this week.  In your town.  It's cheap fun.  More people should do it.  That was my initial point. 

 Yes, you can go crazy and buy a suitcase worth of Novak rackets and Murray shoes.  You don't have to.  90% of the people I see on the courts, none of that gear is going to help their game.  But, they're having fun for short money.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 25, 2014)

mister moose said:


> 'enjoyable vertical', (whatever that Gomezerism means)



Enjoyable vertical - Vertical that's actually plausible, and that a skier would seek out and intentionally ski, and have fun while doing so.  



deadheadskier said:


> Well, t*hey didn't 20 years ago and at least one kid on the team was good enough to get a college scholarship. *



They most certainly did 20 years ago, and if a kid made his way through the age of 18 with ONE tennis racquet and was good enough to get a college scholarship (for tennis), that's pretty amazing. Possible I guess, but almost implausible really, unless he/she was from a small, poor Bolivian village, but did nothing but play tennis is his/her freetime.  Even then, HTH did they not break it?  I broke (unintentionally, not in anger) probably 1 racquet every 1.5 years I'd say.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 25, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Enjoyable vertical - Vertical that's actually plausible, and that a skier would seek out and intentionally ski, and have fun while doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> They most certainly did 20 years ago, and if a kid made his way through the age of 18 with ONE tennis racquet and was good enough to get a college scholarship (for tennis), that's pretty amazing. Possible I guess, but almost implausible really, unless he/she was from a small, poor Bolivian village, but did nothing but play tennis is his/her freetime.  Even then, HTH did they not break it?  I broke (unintentionally, not in anger) probably 1 racquet every 1.5 years I'd say.



I didn't say they made it through the age of 18 having only owned ONE racket.  If they broke one, they bought a new one.  These kids certainly didn't have a 2-3 racket quiver.  And mind you, this was a boarding school.  Primarily kids who came from money.  They didn't have multiple rackets.  The kid who got a scholarship grew up in Menlo California and came from lots of money, so I assume he had a ton of lessons growing up.  He only brought 1 racket to school in Vermont with him.  

But, either way.  Like I said, the game can and is played by many people for cheap.  It doesn't have to even remotely approach the costs of skiing or golf.  I think it's great fun.  More people should play.


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 25, 2014)

I was the number one player on my high school tennis team with a T-2000 racquet that I bought for $4 at a yard sale.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 25, 2014)

still play?


----------



## Puck it (Sep 25, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> I was the number one player on my high school tennis team with a T-2000 racquet that I bought for $4 at a yard sale.




I loved that racquet when it came out. I think upgrade to the t3000.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 25, 2014)

I prefer the T-1000. It's aluminum construction allows for a solid backhand.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 25, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> I was the number one player on my high school tennis team with *a T-2000 racquet that I bought for $4* at a yard sale.





Puck it said:


> *I loved that racquet when it came out. I think upgrade to the t3000*.



Wow, you guys are older than me!


----------



## Edd (Sep 26, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> I prefer the T-1000. It's aluminum construction allows for a solid backhand.



Possibly the best action movie of all time.


----------



## Smellytele (Sep 26, 2014)

Ski industry thread morphing into a tennis thread hmmm...


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 26, 2014)

Got your future of skiing right here........


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 26, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> still play?


Sadly, no.  I moved away from my tennis-playing friends and have yet to find someone local who is interested.  Tennis is not at all popular here with the under 60 crowd.  The couple of times I have played, I've been really frustrated.  I used to be able to pick exactly where I wanted to hit the ball.  Now I'm just happy to get it over the net.  I was also self-taught, except for the occasional recreational department program.  I used a two-hand backhand when people who did so were in the minority (at least if they had a penis).  

I replaced the racquet with a fancier follow-up model as well.  It was the T-5000.  I thought it was aluminum, but apparently it was steel.  I used the racquet well into the over-sized Prince racquet era.  I looked like a dinosaur, but I still held my own on the court.

Here is the "fancier" racquet:


----------



## Nick (Sep 26, 2014)

I've had this same conversation before here about skiing. 

So, I golf 2 - 3 times per year. I'm not hanging out on golfzone.com and chatting with golfers etc. etc. 

This is how skiing is for MOST people. They ski a few times a year. 

I still think people are getting fatter, lazier, and making more excuses for themselves year after year about why they can or can't do something. No denying having kids has made it harder for me to go skiing (especially last year when my daughter was born on new years) but I will be getting out there this year for sure. 

My wife is life only happens once. Sometimes it's easier to sit on the couch than pack up a family with ski gear and head to the mountain. But when you put your head back on that pillow at night, which path will you have felt really good about? Which path gives your family memories that last?


----------



## Nick (Sep 26, 2014)

I would like to get back into tennis. 

I have too many things i like to do, haha.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 26, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> Sadly, no.  I moved away from my tennis-playing friends and have yet to find someone local who is interested.  Tennis is not at all popular here with the under 60 crowd.  The couple of times I have played, I've been really frustrated.  I used to be able to pick exactly where I wanted to hit the ball.  Now I'm just happy to get it over the net.  I was also self-taught, except for the occasional recreational department program.  I used a two-hand backhand when people who did so were in the minority (at least if they had a penis).



I hear you.  I'm fortunate that my wife likes to play, but not nearly as much as me.  I'd play everyday the weather allowed as a means of exercise over running or any gym related activities. 

I was never very good.  Couple of town rec department lessons as a kid, the year of JV in HS.  So, getting back into the game 15 years later without instruction has been a challenge.  The biggest of which was converting on my own from a two handed backhand, to a one hander.  Loved Connors and Agassi as a kid, so I had the two hander.  As an adult, I prefer the one hand players on tour.  I can hit a pretty good flat or slice one hand, but am weak with topspin on it.   However, I've progressed each of the 5 years I've been back playing, so that's what makes me want to keep getting out there. 

Maybe I should join a tennis forum to find people to play with.  It worked for skiing.  :lol:


----------



## Domeskier (Sep 26, 2014)

I've been using this racket since 1983 and it hasn't failed me yet.  Thanks, sis:


----------



## C-Rex (Sep 26, 2014)

Nick said:


> I would like to get back into tennis.
> 
> I have too many things i like to do, haha.




I hear that.  Generally, I snowboard in the winter and mountain bike in the summer.  In the past two years I've added golf to summer and bowling to winter.  It all gets expensive pretty quick.


----------



## dlague (Sep 26, 2014)

I look at this way - I came from a non skiing family but had an interest in it.  After my first job and getting my drivers license, I bought new skis, boots, poles etc..  Winter was never a bother since i snowmobiled a lot.  But my feeder hill was ..... Jay Peak.  In my third year of skiing, I actually made snow for them so I could ski everyday.  I went into the military and continued skiing in Europe whicle stationed in Germany.  

Eventually got married, to a non skier and tried to get her to learn but was too scared of falling.  I ended up taking a 12 year hiatus (skied a few time in that time frame) and hated it.  We had a child and once he was three I got back into it using him as an excuse.   Eventually got divorced and started skiing more with my son.

Got remarried to a woman that did not ski - she knew it was a strong interest for me so opted to learn and she did and she developed the same passion.  Combined we had 4 kids, her, mine and ours!  The whole family skied and ramped up to 25+ days and eventually to 30+ days.  That is a lot of skier visits (30*6).  The kids have grown up with the exception of one that is still in school.  We will be shooting for an even higher number of skier visits (my wife and I) but will now only be three of us.  Will our kids continue the passion?  My son stationed in Germany has already skied several time in Europe last season - so that is one.

The point is - I am on the border of the Baby Boomer and X Gen groups.  The largest population segment is aging and their kids are know fending for themselves.  Cost does matter to them.  Will they be interested in spending the $$$ or wil they opt for something else like Winter surfing as one of our friends decided to do (does not snowboard anymore).

The sport is expensive and that trend is not slowing down.  Baby Boomers are aging and getting out of the sport and their kids are not all getting back into it.  It is also known that the Digital Age group seems to be migrating away for sports like golf and skiing and identifying with more urban focused activities that do not have recurring cost each and every day they want to do something.


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 26, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> I had an interesting conversation with a person who runs a golf course (not in my area).  The person said that the golf course is really worried.  Memberships are way down from what they were 20 or 30 years ago, and the number of day-rate players has significantly declined.
> 
> The theory is this: A) Golf and tennis are dying sports; and
> B) Golf is no longer consistent with people's lifestyle.  It takes 4-5 hours to play 18 holes of golf on this course.  The average family has two wage earners, and the children have sports and other activities (piano lessons, etc.) almost every day of the week.  The parents need to run errands on the weekend such as grocery shopping.  The time just isn't there.
> ...



Seriously, I hope you're not some sort of analyst.


----------



## mbedle (Sep 26, 2014)

Thanks for posting Highwaystar - very interesting. Actually, the other data on the website is pretty insightful.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 26, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> Seriously, *I hope you're not some sort of analyst.*



I'm not sure I understand your point, his post was about the FUTURE of skiing, not the current environment.  

 An "analyst" doesn't use AAPL's current earnings as the sole means to derive future earnings.


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 26, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I'm not sure I understand your point, his post was about the FUTURE of skiing, not the current environment.
> 
> An "analyst" doesn't use AAPL's current earnings as the sole means to derive future earnings.



Skier visits and revenues have been growing for 30+ years.  Are you saying that's going to change?


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 26, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> Seriously, I hope you're not some sort of analyst.


Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Go back into your hole, asswipe.


----------



## dlague (Sep 26, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> Seriously, I hope you're not some sort of analyst.



Hopefully you aren't either!

How many skiers/snowboarders in the US?  Around 16 M or so plus or minus a million each year.  Now take a look at that chart the range is between 51 million - 58 million skier visits.  Still following?  the range can be changed by half of the skiers skiing 1 day less so technically that chart is flat!

However look at the past three years in terms of the number of snow sport participants - looks like decline in each category!




The point is the largest adult segment (baby boomers) is getting older and their snow sport numbers are dropping quickly.  It is also a fact that our youth that skied with their families are not returning to the sport.  If the kids of today do not translate into the same percentages (25-44) as they get older then the future kid numbers will drop as well.



Ski areas will close, less snow will be made due to warmer temps, seasons will be shorter due to GW and then the numbers will drop like crazy!  Was not thinking about it this way!


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 26, 2014)

He also failed to take into account that the population of the United States has grown significantly, yet skier visits have not kept pace.

In any event, he's an idiot: http://www.mrablog.com/explaining-ski-industry-demographics/

He just wanted to be confrontational, rather than adding something substantive to the conversation.  But we knew that's how he rolls.


----------



## dlague (Sep 26, 2014)

Nick said:


> I would like to get back into tennis.
> 
> I have too many things i like to do, haha.



I hear you on the too many things I like to do - when summer is here!  Winter forget about it - very focused!

I used to play tennis on the high school team and in college for a year.  Loved the sport and would like to play it more but have no one to play it with.  Our family goes out an tries it a few times per summer - this year zero!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 26, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> *Skier visits and revenues have been growing for 30+ years.  Are you saying that's going to change?*



Yes.



dlague said:


> Ski areas will close,* less snow will be made due to warmer temps, seasons will be shorter due to GW and then the numbers will drop like crazy!*



There has been no Global Warming for almost 20 years now, despite CO2 increases that are significantly greater than the pro man-made Global Warming scientists hypothesized.   

And even if they're correct and man-made Global Warming is 100% real and eventually "starts happening again", the incremental difference to net snowfall per year wont be something that you, your children, your children's children, or maybe even your children's children's children have to worry about.  But that's a wee-bit beyond the scope of industry financial planning, depsite the current shark-hopping hysteria.


----------



## dlague (Sep 26, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> He also failed to take into account that the population of the United States has grown significantly, yet skier visits have not kept pace.
> 
> In any event, he's an idiot: http://www.mrablog.com/explaining-ski-industry-demographics/
> 
> He just wanted to be confrontational, rather than adding something substantive to the conversation.  But we knew that's how he rolls.



Thanks - that article make the point - I was trying to make!


----------



## dlague (Sep 26, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Was not serious on that last line! -


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 26, 2014)

Somebody comes along every year and claims that skiing is dying.  We call those people *Morons*.


----------



## dlague (Sep 26, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> Skier visits and revenues have been growing for 30+ years.  Are you saying that's going to change?



Revenues up with fewer snow sports participants!  That trend will continue.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 26, 2014)

dlague said:


> Was not serious on that last line!



Gotcha.  I didn't realize it because there ARE plenty of uninformed people who genuinely believe that skiing will be seriously impaired by Global Warming in the next decade or two.  Their hysteria almost defies belief.  



dlague said:


> *Revenues up with fewer snow sports participants!  That trend will continue*.



Likely so.  Open up the wallets.


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 26, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> Somebody comes along every year and claims that skiing is dying.  We call those people *Morons*.


Tell me where in my post I said that skiing is dying.  People who can't read are morons.  By the way, the word "moron" is not capitalized.  Apparently you do not know the difference between "moron" and "Mormon".

In any event, way to refute the actual data you were provided with... well... nothing.

Were you seriously trying to argue with my argument that the construction of indoor recreational facilities in urban areas will put pressure on the ski industry?  Are you so dense that you are seriously challenging this concept?  Or are you merely a troll?


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 26, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> He also failed to take into account that the population of the United States has grown significantly, yet skier visits have not kept pace.
> 
> In any event, he's an idiot: http://www.mrablog.com/explaining-ski-industry-demographics/
> 
> He just wanted to be confrontational, rather than adding something substantive to the conversation.  But we knew that's how he rolls.



Look, I'm sorry to say this, but I have no idea why you're attempting to argue with me.  You're an idiot.  A large percentage of what you post is pointless, dull, obvious, or just plain stupid.  Seriously, get off the internet before you give yourself a stroke.

Oh, and you're an incorrect idiot, too - skier visit growth is matching or exceeding population growth:

(I should note that the _number _of people who _supposedly_ ski is not really important, at all.  In fact, you're sometimes better off having a core group of dedicated participants, which indicates it is not a fad sport)


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 26, 2014)

There's also no lack of young and middle aged people:

http://sports.espn.go.com/action/snowboarding/news/story?id=6670684


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 26, 2014)

Let's make it simple so you can understand it.

Skier visits in 1978/1979 were roughly 50 million.
Skier visits in 2013/2014 were roughly 57 million - which is an increase of 14%.

The United States population in 1978 was 222 million.
The United States population in 2012 was 314 million - which is an increase of 41%.

(I'll pause for a few minutes so you can wrap your head around this....)

Get it?


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 26, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> There's also no lack of young and middle aged people:
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/action/snowboarding/news/story?id=6670684


Thank you for backing up my point.  This chart shows that skier ages do not reflect the age of the general population in that skiers tend to stop skiing as they get older. 

With a population of baby boomers that is aging, well... can you figure it out?


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 26, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> Let's make it simple so you can understand it.
> 
> Skier visits in 1978 were roughly 50 million.
> Skier visits in 2012 were roughly 58 million - which is an increase of 16%.
> ...



Oh. My. God. 

You are such a *epic moron*.  

Please, remember to keep breathing here, nose (not just mouth).  Wouldn't want you to pass out on your keyboard......though it might improve the quality of your posts.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 26, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> *I should note that the number of people who supposedly ski is not really important, at all. * In fact, you're sometimes better off having a core group of dedicated participants, which indicates it is not a fad sport



Ski equipment manufacturers, ski clothing manufacturers, hotel & motel & Inn operators, restauranteurs, and a host of other industries deriving income off of numerical "warm bodies", and which comprise the overall health of the ski industry ex-mountain ops, would likely disagree.


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 26, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> You are such a *epic moron*.


Then I guess the trade analysts are too.  I'm happy to be a part of that club.


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 26, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> Then I guess the trade analysts are too.  I'm happy to be a part of that club.



I'm guessing you might have graduated high school, just barely.  Ever take a college level statistics or even a math course?  Nothing fancy, just first year calc, etc?  No?  Ever have to graph something or do math for a job?  No?  

I'm not suprised.


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 26, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Ski equipment manufacturers, ski clothing manufacturers, hotel & motel & Inn operators, restauranteurs, and a host of other industries deriving income off of numerical "warm bodies", and which comprise the overall health of the ski industry ex-mountain ops, would likely disagree.



Then why are revenues up also?


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 26, 2014)

Argument from authority logical fallacy.  In any event, I'm willing to bet that whatever degree you have mine matches or exceeds it.


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 26, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> Then why are revenues up also?


This is where you are a Mormon... err.. moron.  When you look at growth, there are two ways to grow your business; a) grow your customer base; b) grow the amount each customer spends.  

The latter is much more finite than the former.  But you are focusing solely on the latter all the while insisting that we don't look at the man behind the curtain.  You can also account for a portion of the increase in revenues due to inflation alone.


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 26, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> Argument from authority logical fallacy.  In any event, I'm willing to bet that whatever degree you have mine matches or exceeds it.





VTKilarney said:


> This is where you are a Mormon... err.. moron.  When you look at growth, there are two ways to grow your business; a) grow your customer base; b) grow the amount each customer spends.
> 
> The latter is much more finite than the former.  But you are focusing solely on the latter all the while insisting that we don't look at the man behind the curtain.  You can also account for a portion of the increase in revenues due to inflation alone.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 26, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> *Then why are revenues up also?*



Because the price increases are exceeding net growth.

EDIT: 

Was this a trick question or was it as incredibly obvious as it seems?


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 26, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> Then why are revenues up also?


Yeah, because costs should be ignored.  Revenues are all that matters.  Tell that to this little company: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/vail-resorts-profit-falls-21-on-higher-costs-2014-03-12-164854923


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 26, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> Let's make it simple so you can understand it.
> 
> Skier visits in 1978 were roughly 50 million.
> Skier visits in 2012 were roughly 58 million - which is an increase of 16%.
> ...




But it's not that simple

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation. This is a logical fallacy, and can't be proven or disproven with 2  data points. 

If you really want to PROVE skiing is dying, you need to look at other stuff like income per capita, increase of ski costs vs rate of inflation, and the consumer price index. For example:

Minimum wage in 1978, $2.65. Average cost of a car 4,500. Hours required to save up for car - 1698 (42 weeks)
Minimum wage in 2013, $7.25. Average cost of a car 31,000. Hours required to save up for car - 4275 (106 weeks)

That's a 151% increase for the same type of product over 35 years. 

Skiing falls under that category of disposable income. If you want to see if the numbers are really going down, you need to compare it against other disposable income industries, or the disposable income industry itself.

Long story short, it's not as cut and try as finding a correlation between 2 data points. I don't care which way this argument goes, but that needs to be said. And unless anyone is writing up their dissertation for a doctoral degree, the stuff said here so far isn't even scratching the surface.


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 26, 2014)

Hah!  If you think that I have a degree in philosophy, you are quite off the mark.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 26, 2014)

Highway Star said:


>



That's awesome.  Copied and saved.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 26, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> If you really want to PROVE skiing is dying,



I could be wrong, but I dont think anyone is suggesting that.  The forward demographic trends are, however, somewhat worrisome.  




skiNEwhere said:


> Minimum wage in 1978, $2.65. Average cost of a car 4,500. Hours required to save up for car - 1698 (42 weeks)
> Minimum wage in 2013, $7.25. Average cost of a car 31,000. Hours required to save up for car - 4275 (106 weeks)



The average person who makes minimum wage doesn't buy a new car.  Hell, a large chunk of people in American making "minimum wage" either cant drive yet or are just barely old enough for a drivers license.  

*There's a BIG misunderstanding regarding minimum wage in this nation which the media doesn't do a good job explaining* (I think it's politically motivated), which is that the lion's share of people making minimum wage are UNDER the age of 25.  Many are teens or college kids working part-time jobs, who will almost certainly move up the pay-ladder and achieve earnings > min wage.  

It is, generally speaking, complete fantasy that there are_ "millions of Americans struggling to survive on minimum wage"_. Total.......complete.....fantasy.  If you add up all the people in America making the Federal minimum or less, you only have a few million people.  That's it.  Really.


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 26, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> But it's not that simple
> 
> Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.


A couple of points:
a) This is an internet forum.  Hopefully nobody here has the time to write a dissertation.
b) The overall travel and tourism industry has grown at a much higher rate than the ski industry.
c) The ski area trade associations have identified significant concerns from here on out - mostly centered around the aging baby boomer population and the lackluster ability to attract new people to the sport.  I trust that they have thought this through before publishing.
d) Compare skiing to the "disposable income" cruise industry.  Let me know how skiing has been doing...


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 26, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I could be wrong, but I dont think anyone is suggesting that.  The forward demographic trends are, however, somewhat worrisome.


Spot on.  The whole premise was false and originated from Highway Star's inflammatory rhetoric.


----------



## bobbutts (Sep 26, 2014)

31k gets you a 2015 WRX with 265 HP turbo, torque vector steering, etc etc.

If you just need a car rather than a luxury/sports car you can do ok with the same hrs of minimum wage.
$7.25 x 1698 hrs =  $12,310 gets you 
*Nissan Versa* – The Nissan Versa starts at $9.990 MSRP, with a base model that has a 1.6 four cylinder for 107HP, a five speed manual transmission as standard, and 26/34 mpg. For $2000 more, you can upgrade to its 1.8 S trim that comes with more comfortable seating, auxiliary jacks, air conditioning, and antilock brakes. Plusses include impressive cargo room, spacious rear seating, and better than average handling and turning. Cons include stiff acceleration, abysmal safety scores (it rated two out of five stars in side crash and three out of four stars in front crash rating) and stiff acceleration.

Here's your 4k 1978-mobile for comparison


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 26, 2014)

bobbutts said:


> 31k gets you a 2015 WRX with 265 HP turbo, torque vector steering, etc etc.
> 
> If you just need a car rather than a luxury/sports car you can do ok with the same hrs of minimum wage.
> $7.25 x 1698 hrs =  $12,310 gets you
> ...


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 26, 2014)




----------



## Highway Star (Sep 26, 2014)




----------



## Highway Star (Sep 26, 2014)




----------



## Highway Star (Sep 26, 2014)




----------



## mbedle (Sep 26, 2014)

LOL - just sitting back, having a drink and enjoying the show....


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 26, 2014)

I'm just using cars to illustrate that the consumer price index needs to be looked at in relation to minimum wage, I'm not trying to argue what types of cars people buy, or if they're new or used. Average obviously means some cost more, some cost less. Im sure all these high end, tricked out SUV's and pick-ups are somewhat responsible for skewing the 31k average for the price of cars today.

$4,500 by the way, would buy you a new Camaro in 1978 with base options, which IMHO is a lot cooler car than a Versa


----------



## St. Bear (Sep 26, 2014)

bobbutts said:


> Here's your 4k 1978-mobile for comparison



I'd be more interested in the space ship in the background.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 26, 2014)

I'll take one of these thank you very much


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 26, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> *the consumer price index needs to be looked at in relation to minimum wage*



Why?   

That would be useful if you wanted to compare what a 17 year old working the fry grill at MCD could afford in 1984 versus 2014, but not too useful for ski industry economics.   I think you're confusing minimum wage versus CPI with median income versus the CPI.   Median Income is down a whopping 8% in the last 7 years.  Wages are stagnating, raises are rare, and people who lost their jobs and have been fortunate enough to find a new one are generally either being hired for less than their previous salary or forced to work part-time.   All negative indicators for spending in general, and certainly for discretionary (i.e. ski) spending.



St. Bear said:


> I'd be more interested in the space ship in the background.



I stared at that for a good 20 seconds before giving up.  I still have no idea what it is.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 26, 2014)

Highway Star said:


>




I'm thinking this may be more up you alley. Judging by the length of that sub, you could probably all your pairs of ski's in there too!


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 26, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Why?
> 
> That would be useful if you wanted to compare what a 17 year old working the fry grill at MCD could afford in 1984 versus 2014, but not too useful for ski industry economics.   I think you're confusing minimum wage versus CPI with median income versus the CPI.   Median Income is down a whopping 8% in the last 7 years.  Wages are stagnating, raises are rare, and people who lost their jobs and have been fortunate enough to find a new one are generally being hired for less than their previous salary.  All negative indicators for spending in general, and certainly for discretionary (i.e. ski) spending.
> 
> ...




I'm not trying to compare against medium income. I'm trying to compare against how affordable skiing is for those making minimum wage. My mom skied as a self-employed struggling artist in the 70's, she didn't "make" minimum wage per se but she could find ways to afford skiing. Today that's impossible on minimum wage.

I'm just showing that by looking at minimum wage vs. CPI, we can see how more of each paycheck is allocated on the necessities, and less on disposable income. 

This is just one variable though.


----------



## Not Sure (Sep 26, 2014)

$4,500 by the way, would buy you a new Camaro in 1978 with base options, which IMHO is a lot cooler car than a Versa[/QUOTE]
Camaro...nice car indeed....Jarred a funny memory from my youth.
Camaro pulls up to a four way stop by a general store ...2 guys walking tword a hopped up Gremlin ...exchange stares.
Camaro pulls out laying rubber....2 guys look at each other ,run to Gremlin jump in and punch it doing a sharpe U turn and ...Boom engine blows up ...car rolls to a slow stop by the sign.....Me and my buddies rolled on the ground laughing at the site.


----------



## dlague (Sep 26, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> Then why are revenues up also?



Look at Stowe's lift ticket increase as an example!  pretty logical


----------



## St. Bear (Sep 26, 2014)

bigbog said:


> I love life and I truely think that good times are here and are in the cards for the future...but winters, no matter how they cook the books, are nothing like they were as far as consistency and longevity of the 40s-60s.  Thus...the resorts are the future, unless the jetstream settles down...and the resorts are imho simply robber barons.  Things would be a lot better if resorts' max passes were set at a % of one's income...for Everybody.  They'd make a LOT more $$$...and more people would have the opportunity to ski as much as they want...society would be a much healthier one, mentally and physically....and if the wealthy wouldn't partake in visiting the resorts as much...ts.



You have to take what a guy like Joe Bastardi says with a grain of salt.  That being said, he's not the only one who I've heard say that we're heading towards a cooler overall climate similar to the 50's-70's.


----------



## bigbog (Sep 26, 2014)

I'm bullish on the industry, but (as in an earlier version..LOL) I'd like to see us all get cards with chips in them, a portion devoted to maintaining the figures on our previous year's earnings...and have resorts charge on a % of those earnings for Passes for Everyone, instead of a fixed figure...being small change for the wealthy and a month's earnings for some.   Have often thought it would make it a more civil society for all...imho, just my $.01.  Look at the numbers and imho resorts would make more $$$.  I don't see where anyone could reject that win-win...y/n?..instead of just blindly raising taxes on the wealthier.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 26, 2014)

bigbog said:


> *  winters, no matter how they cook the books,  are nothing like they were as far as consistency and longevity of the  40s-60s.*



Irrespective of the fact I have no idea what (or who) you mean by "cooking the books", last winter was one of the coldest and snowiest in the last 100 years.  



bigbog said:


> the resorts are imho simply robber barons.  *Things  would be a lot better if resorts' max passes were set at a % of one's  income...for Everybody.  They'd make a LOT more $$$*...



No, they wouldn't.    



bigbog said:


> society would  be a much healthier one, mentally and physically....and* if the wealthy  wouldn't partake in visiting the resorts as much*...ts.



Yes, if only we could do something to keep those "evil" wealthy people who work hard to earn their money away from the resorts.  Wouldn't life be grand then?   Good Lord in heaven, you sound like one of those hypocritical losers from Occupy Wall Street.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 26, 2014)

St. Bear said:


> You have to take what a guy like Joe Bastardi says with a grain of salt.  That being said, he's not the only one who I've heard say that we're heading towards a cooler overall climate similar to the 50's-70's.



St. Bear says the above.....



bigbog said:


> Yeah...agree about what our present has potential to produce St.Bear!    Think instead of being wishy-washy about how friendly the Iraqi gov't is  to its people...we should've stood our ground, locked up all the scam  artists in Iraq and made it a state...




And this is the response.........Happy Hour just ended?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 26, 2014)

bigbog said:


> *I'd like to see us all get cards with chips in them, a portion devoted to maintaining the figures on our previous year's earnings...and have resorts charge on a % of those earnings for Passes for Everyone, instead of a fixed figure*.............*a month's earnings for some. *


----------



## Not Sure (Sep 26, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


>



Lets see how this works out.http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ri...mployees-unlimited-vacation/story?id=25696231


----------



## SkiFanE (Sep 26, 2014)

I'm not a big financial whiz, and not fulling informed of all the posts in this thread.  But you can't compare 2014 ski experience with 1970s.  I started skiing in 1970 and have only missed a few winters in between.  Except for a few 'big' areas in VT and NH, everything was small time in the 70s.  Skiied in your jeans (no special expensive gear).  Knit hats, my mom made those and my ski mittens.  I had hand-me-down gear and went on the school bus after school to the tiny feeder hill in town next door.  Rope tows, fed by an old Ford.  There was the expert trail with the super fast rope tow (that crapped out your clothes), and 2 small ones and a T-bar.  Went to to a bigger moutain in NH (Crotched) in 1980 or so...slowest chair lift, waits were 30-45 mins for a small run.  Snowmaking?  Hmm... maybe a few guns here and there...dont remember much at all.  Many icy lean snow years.  

If things werre like that today, you could afford it.  But skiers now demand more...so price HAS to go up - how can you have detachables and grooming and snowmaking with same dollars?  You're  high.  When I graduated college my first professional job was not much more than minimum wage lol.  Not enough money to pay for skiing and living on my own - so I picked up a second job in a liquor store - first 6 months I saved for new gear, then thru the winter it paid for my tickets.  You find a way.  Maybe skiing is a motivator to working hard...work  the  fryolater at McD as a career and dont ski, or get a skill/trade/reputation and pull yourself up to a better paying job so you can ski?  Or get a second job?  The small mountains in maine are dying...noone wants to go, even though you could probably afford it as a fryolator guy.  Peoples baseline criteria for skiing is exponentially greater than it was when i was a kid...  Honestly I don't know how I could ski in such crappy gear, without being cold...or maybe I was but the memories fade in the aura of skiing...but people nowadays cannot take such conditions.



skiNEwhere said:


> I'm not trying to compare against medium income. I'm trying to compare against how affordable skiing is for those making minimum wage. My mom skied as a self-employed struggling artist in the 70's, she didn't "make" minimum wage per se but she could find ways to afford skiing. Today that's impossible on minimum wage.
> 
> I'm just showing that by looking at minimum wage vs. CPI, we can see how more of each paycheck is allocated on the necessities, and less on disposable income.
> 
> This is just one variable though.


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 27, 2014)

When I first got my drivers license at 16ish I went to VT. for weekends from NYC. 2 days lift tickets, 2 nights lodging, food, gas & partying Saturday night I'd  still come home with change from $100.


----------



## spring_mountain_high (Sep 27, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Yes, if only we could do something to keep those "evil" wealthy people who work hard to earn their money away from the resorts.  Wouldn't life be grand then?   Good Lord in heaven, you sound like one of those hypocritical losers from Occupy Wall Street.



do you really believe that all, or even most, wealthy people 'work hard' to 'earn' their money


----------



## mister moose (Sep 27, 2014)

spring_mountain_high said:


> do you really believe that all, or even most, wealthy people 'work hard' to 'earn' their money



All?  No, there are exceptions which fuel your shortsighted, judgmental opinion.  Yes, most do.

Although I'm sure you think most bosses just sit around with their feet up, telling everyone what to do, and they got there by luck or graft, and you could do a better job than your boss, or even his boss, and that the farther up the ladder you get, the easier it is.


----------



## mbedle (Sep 27, 2014)

If I got to pay more for a lift ticket or pass because some idiot chose a crappy career path - I'm checking out early.... Holly hell - that kind of talk is scary to me!


----------



## Edd (Sep 27, 2014)

mbedle said:


> If I got to pay more for a lift ticket or pass because some idiot chose a crappy career path - I'm checking out early.... Holly hell - that kind of talk is scary to me!



Folks don't always make less than ideal money because they're idiots who choose crappy career paths. Generalizations go both ways, apparently.


----------



## mbedle (Sep 27, 2014)

You are correct Edd - I was generalizing. I should have said that if a person has chosen to work a minimum wage job, they should have known the limits that career path has on potential income. Sorry if I offended anyone. There are obviously people who chose a decent career path and the economy has changed the potential income that career can generate. My biggest concern was just with the statement someone made about incomes should dictate what someone pays to ski.


----------



## Not Sure (Sep 27, 2014)

Edd said:


> Folks don't always make less than ideal money because they're idiots who choose crappy career paths. Generalizations go both ways, apparently.



Agreed....But the idea of entitlement that seems to be out there is very frustrating , coupled with the "Politics of Envy" that has been around lately only adds one more reason for people to be unhappy.

I would love to take off and ski to my hearts content but my family would pay the price , I am not wealthy but live a comfortable life because I put in a lot of hours, Actually think I'm slow and not very smart but make up for the handicap by working harder and longer. Some people are born with a gift and some aren't . But being envious tword others just eats you up inside. 

I very much enjoy reading about other peoples skiing exploits and am not jealous one bit ...more power to them.
with the exception of the conceited asshole trust fund kid who taunts others ....They can burn in hell.


----------



## dlague (Sep 27, 2014)

SkiFanE said:


> I'm not a big financial whiz, and not fulling informed of all the posts in this thread.  But you can't compare 2014 ski experience with 1970s.  I started skiing in 1970 and have only missed a few winters in between.  Except for a few 'big' areas in VT and NH, everything was small time in the 70s.  Skiied in your jeans (no special expensive gear).  Knit hats, my mom made those and my ski mittens.  I had hand-me-down gear and went on the school bus after school to the tiny feeder hill in town next door.  Rope tows, fed by an old Ford.  There was the expert trail with the super fast rope tow (that crapped out your clothes), and 2 small ones and a T-bar.  Went to to a bigger moutain in NH (Crotched) in 1980 or so...slowest chair lift, waits were 30-45 mins for a small run.  Snowmaking?  Hmm... maybe a few guns here and there...dont remember much at all.  Many icy lean snow years.
> 
> If things werre like that today, you could afford it.  But skiers now demand more...so price HAS to go up - how can you have detachables and grooming and snowmaking with same dollars?  You're  high.  When I graduated college my first professional job was not much more than minimum wage lol.  Not enough money to pay for skiing and living on my own - so I picked up a second job in a liquor store - first 6 months I saved for new gear, then thru the winter it paid for my tickets.  You find a way.  Maybe skiing is a motivator to working hard...work  the  fryolater at McD as a career and dont ski, or get a skill/trade/reputation and pull yourself up to a better paying job so you can ski?  Or get a second job?  The small mountains in maine are dying...noone wants to go, even though you could probably afford it as a fryolator guy.  Peoples baseline criteria for skiing is exponentially greater than it was when i was a kid...  Honestly I don't know how I could ski in such crappy gear, without being cold...or maybe I was but the memories fade in the aura of skiing...but people nowadays cannot take such conditions.





I agree with much of what you said!  There were no parks, glade skiing was non existent, no HSQ's, fewer snow cats , lodges much simpler and snowmaking was much more basic!  I worked making snow at Jay Peak in 1980 and while we had good coverage the guns were not very efficient.  I think in a push to attract more visits ski areas actually created a product that drove up expectations and ultimately the costs!


.......


----------



## mbedle (Sep 27, 2014)

dlague said:


> I agree with much of what you said!  There were no parks, glade skiing was non existent, no HSQ's, fewer snow cats , lodges much simpler and snowmaking was much more basic!  I worked making snow at Jay Peak in 1980 and while we had good coverage the guns were not very efficient.  I think in a push to attract more visits ski areas actually created a product that drove up expectations and ultimately the costs!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All true, but that applies to everything in society (houses, cars, electronics, etc.). I also don't think ski areas decided on their own to modernize their businesses, it was mostly a response to consumer needs and requests.


----------



## dlague (Sep 27, 2014)

mbedle said:


> All true, but that applies to everything in society (houses, cars, electronics, etc.). I also don't think ski areas decided on their own to modernize their businesses, it was mostly a response to consumer needs and requests.



Well I think that larger ski areas add features or technology or expansion in order to increase skier visits which results in new standards.


.......


----------



## mbedle (Sep 27, 2014)

dlague said:


> Well I think that larger ski areas add features or technology or expansion in order to increase skier visits which results in new standards.
> 
> 
> .......



We need an economist to figure this out. Maybe you are right. It might be a "Build it and they will come" scenario. I don't really know how it works. What if no one complained about a fifty minute lift rides to the summit or standing in lift lines, do you think that a ski area would still go ahead and install a HSQ? 

On an other note, has the cost of skiing increase faster than other tangible items. A gallon of gas back in 1970 cost $0.35 and now it cost $3.50. Stowe's lift ticket in 1970 cost $10.00 and now it cost $109 (at the window) and $89 online. The cost of gas has risen 10 fold in the past 44 years, almost the same as Stowe's lift ticket cost. As far as wages goes, they increased as much over the past 44 years. Back in 1970 a $10 lift ticket was approximately 0.00119 percent of the medium household income. Now it would be approximately 0.002026 percent of the medium household income or 0.001711 percent for the online ticket. With that said, I can understand how a lot of people would perceive skiing to be more expensive than in the past.


----------



## goldsbar (Sep 27, 2014)

SkiFanE said:


> I'm not a big financial whiz, and not fulling informed of all the posts in this thread.  But you can't compare 2014 ski experience with 1970s.  I started skiing in 1970 and have only missed a few winters in between.  Except for a few 'big' areas in VT and NH, everything was small time in the 70s.  Skiied in your jeans (no special expensive gear).  Knit hats, my mom made those and my ski mittens.  I had hand-me-down gear and went on the school bus after school to the tiny feeder hill in town next door.  Rope tows, fed by an old Ford.  There was the expert trail with the super fast rope tow (that crapped out your clothes), and 2 small ones and a T-bar.  Went to to a bigger moutain in NH (Crotched) in 1980 or so...slowest chair lift, waits were 30-45 mins for a small run.  Snowmaking?  Hmm... maybe a few guns here and there...dont remember much at all.  Many icy lean snow years.



I started probably a decade later, but this is still a great description.  Not so many t-bars, but the lifts were incredibly slow and lines long for marginal snow.  Much better now.


----------



## Not Sure (Sep 27, 2014)

mbedle said:


> We need an economist to figure this out. Maybe you are right. It might be a "Build it and they will come" scenario. I don't really know how it works. What if no one complained about a fifty minute lift rides to the summit or standing in lift lines, do you think that a ski area would still go ahead and install a HSQ?
> 
> On an other note, has the cost of skiing increase faster than other tangible items. A gallon of gas back in 1970 cost $0.35 and now it cost $3.50. Stowe's lift ticket in 1970 cost $10.00 and now it cost $109 (at the window) and $89 online. The cost of gas has risen 10 fold in the past 44 years, almost the same as Stowe's lift ticket cost. As far as wages goes, they increased as much over the past 44 years. Back in 1970 a $10 lift ticket was approximately 0.00119 percent of the medium household income. Now it would be approximately 0.002026 percent of the medium household income or 0.001711 percent for the online ticket. With that said, I can understand how a lot of people would perceive skiing to be more expensive than in the past.



How much of the lift ticket price is liability insurance ?. When I started in the 70's my local mole hill would panic at the sight of a mogul larger than 18''


----------



## jack97 (Sep 27, 2014)

mbedle said:


> We need an economist to figure this out. Maybe you are right. It might be a "Build it and they will come" scenario. I don't really know how it works. What if no one complained about a fifty minute lift rides to the summit or standing in lift lines, do you think that a ski area would still go ahead and install a HSQ?
> 
> On an other note, has the cost of skiing increase faster than other tangible items. A gallon of gas back in 1970 cost $0.35 and now it cost $3.50. Stowe's lift ticket in 1970 cost $10.00 and now it cost $109 (at the window) and $89 online. The cost of gas has risen 10 fold in the past 44 years, almost the same as Stowe's lift ticket cost. As far as wages goes, they increased as much over the past 44 years. Back in 1970 a $10 lift ticket was approximately 0.00119 percent of the medium household income. Now it would be approximately 0.002026 percent of the medium household income or 0.001711 percent for the online ticket. With that said, I can understand how a lot of people would perceive skiing to be more expensive than in the past.



 like it or not we live in an oil base economy..... there have been days where I wish it was based on salt.


----------



## snoseek (Sep 27, 2014)

Edd said:


> Folks don't always make less than ideal money because they're idiots who choose crappy career paths. Generalizations go both ways, apparently.



Right....I like to cook and am good in the kitchen so I went to culinary school and have happily settled into a great career. But going by this logic it would definitely be a crappy career path and I'm an idiot for pursuing something I like to do.

edit-by great career I mean satisfying (for the most part...some days SUCK). The money overall is enough to support a very lean lifestyle and not much more...if I had kids I'd be fucked. Also the hours can be a nightmare....I've worked many 100 plus hour work weeks in the past during heavy volume times.


----------



## bigbog (Sep 27, 2014)

I'll concede, I took this going down a slippery slope...You're Right BG..



> ..Yes, if only we could do something to keep those "evil" wealthy people who work hard to earn their money away from the resorts.  Wouldn't life be grand then?   Good Lord in heaven, you sound like one of those hypocritical losers from Occupy Wall Street.



..now I know we're really down the slope...

mbedle...~$.32 in 1962!  A little higher in 70';-).  
You're saying the medium? household income has remained the same one unit?  
Your missing the picture....


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 27, 2014)

jack97 said:


> like it or not we live in an oil base economy..... there have been days where I wish it was based on salt.



might happen.....

http://themindunleashed.org/2014/09/move-tesla-new-car-powered-salt-water-900-horsepower.html


----------



## bigbog (Sep 28, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> I think it's a fair analogy in that a newbie who books a weekend in advance is going to have a bad impression if the weather turns out to be sub-zero.



...often boot/alignment issues too....


----------



## mbedle (Sep 28, 2014)

bigbog said:


> I'll concede, I took this going down a slippery slope...You're Right BG..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No - it was $0.35 in 1970. What do you mean by "household income has remained the same one unit?"


----------



## Smellytele (Sep 28, 2014)

A lot of people theses days are building larger and larger homes. As a kid of the 70's even the nicest houses were smaller than what people seem to be building today as spec homes. People what better and bigger everything but then bitch about the prices. For example pickup trucks used to be vehicles for construction workers or country folk. Now a days they make more luxury 40k pickup trucks than work trucks. Come on Cadillac makes a pickup truck. Who the hell needs a Cadillac pickup truck? Do they ever put a load of dirt or bricks in it? 
So what I am getting at is ski areas heard complaints from people wanting better conditions and better lodges and they listen. Then we bitch. Also who needs to have a lodge that has linen table clothes and sit down service with lobster bisque.  We are a society of want and wanting more and more not realizing the consequences. With every action there is a reaction.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 28, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> might happen.....
> 
> http://themindunleashed.org/2014/09/move-tesla-new-car-powered-salt-water-900-horsepower.html




Lexus us is making one too.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 28, 2014)

Smellytele said:


> A lot of people theses days are building larger and larger homes. As a kid of the 70's even the nicest houses were smaller than what people seem to be building today as spec homes. People what better and bigger everything but then bitch about the prices. For example pickup trucks used to be vehicles for construction workers or country folk. Now a days they make more luxury 40k pickup trucks than work trucks. Come on Cadillac makes a pickup truck. Who the hell needs a Cadillac pickup truck? Do they ever put a load of dirt or bricks in it?
> So what I am getting at is ski areas heard complaints from people wanting better conditions and better lodges and they listen. Then we bitch. Also who needs to have a lodge that has linen table clothes and sit down service with lobster bisque.  We are a society of want and wanting more and more not realizing the consequences. With every action there is a reaction.



+1

This reminds me of this article I read yesterday on MSN about a couple from Plano, Texas "barely making it" on $125K/year income.  

http://money.msn.com/saving-money-t...dollar125k-but-still-losing-sleep-about-money

Now, I realize that's not a huge sum of money for a two income family. In this family it's just 1 earner and if you're making that as an individual, you are doing pretty darn well for yourself.  However, you scroll down and look at their expenses:  $2700 mortgage (in Plano where real estate isn't very expensive), $3000 in monthly credit card payments.   Yeah, you're barely scraping by because you're making poor financial decisions.  You could afford an average home in Plano for half that mortgage payment.  What the hell did/are you buying to ring up a $3K monthly CC bill.

I think a big part of why people feel the economy is so bad is because people have redefined what our basic quality of life needs to be and are upset when they can't afford cell phones, iPads, 52" TVs and cars for every family member and going out to eat 5 nights a week.


----------



## Edd (Sep 28, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> +1
> 
> This reminds me of this article I read yesterday on MSN about a couple from Plano, Texas "barely making it" on $125K/year income.
> 
> ...



Perversely fascinating to compare someone else's finances to your own. The $300 electric bill is an eyebrow raiser, but it's hard to compare that to my small place in NH with just the GF and me. Our air conditioning expenses are certainly lower. I wonder if the credit card debt is due to the health expenses for the kid.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 28, 2014)

I did think that perhaps the child's health issues were part of those high CC totals.   The $2700 mortgage payment is what struck me as odd when the average home in Plano goes for about $250K.  Seems to me they over extended themselves on their home.   Either way, unless you live in Manhattan, San Fran, etc.,  I give very little sympathy to families that say they struggle making it with $125K/year in family income.


----------



## Edd (Sep 28, 2014)

Yeah, reading it a second time, I see they lost their first home because the medical expenses slayed them. Then, they got back on their feet and ended up with a $2700 mortgage on an entirely different home. I assume that's a 15 year spread. I wish them luck.


----------



## bobbutts (Sep 28, 2014)

Large houses are helped out by artificially low interest rates.  Run a mortgage calculator to check the difference between a 4% rate of today vs. 15+% in the 80's.  
1.8M at 4% over 30 years is ~$8,600 monthly payments
at 18% it's $27,000 monthly
In fact to get the payments down to $8,600 with an 18% rate, you can borrow only $570,000 
That's more triple the buying power for the borrower!


----------



## Edd (Sep 28, 2014)

bobbutts said:


> Large houses are helped out by artificially low interest rates.  Run a mortgage calculator to check the difference between a 4% rate of today vs. 15+% in the 80's.
> 1.8M at 4% over 30 years is ~$8,600 monthly payments
> at 18% it's $27,000 monthly
> In fact to get the payments down to $8,600 with an 18% rate, you can borrow only $570,000
> That's more triple the buying power for the borrower!



I'll take your word on all that, but I think average Americans need to live smaller. I hear frequent talk about entitlement regarding the truly poor, but not much talk about people who do have jobs and simply have to own a home but, really, can't afford it. 

This is entirely my opinion, but, it feels to me like its blasphemy to tell someone that they can't really afford the house / kid thing. It's considered an absolute right to do it, reality be damned. I guess it is, but it's often not smart.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 28, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> I think a big part of why people feel the economy is so bad is because people have redefined what our basic quality of life needs to be and are upset when they can't afford cell phones, iPads, 52" TVs and cars for every family member and going out to eat 5 nights a week.



The economy is bad because the economy is bad, but you do make a good point.  The "standard of living" has greatly increased, and it is ridiculous how a Mother, Father, and 1 kid are living in these giant McMansions.  For what?  Because they'll think less of themselves if their house isnt as big as their neighbors.  I'm intentionally renting a great place right now because I believe it's a terrible time to buy a house (yes, I know that's a contrarian view), but when I do buy, I can assure you I'll buy less home than I can afford, not more.  There are millions of Americans right now that are either underh2o on their homes, or "house poor" because their mortgage is so large.  Screw that!


----------



## Smellytele (Sep 29, 2014)

I must be doing something wrong because I could never imagine having an $8600 a month house payment. Mine is only under 11% of that and I wish it was less. I must (blasphemous words coming) spend too much skiing. No that can't be it. It has to be having 3 kids.


----------



## SkiFanE (Sep 29, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> The economy is bad because the economy is bad, but you do make a good point.  The "standard of living" has greatly increased, and it is ridiculous how a Mother, Father, and 1 kid are living in these giant McMansions.  For what?  Because they'll think less of themselves if their house isnt as big as their neighbors.  I'm intentionally renting a great place right now because I believe it's a terrible time to buy a house (yes, I know that's a contrarian view), but when I do buy, I can assure you I'll buy less home than I can afford, not more.  There are millions of Americans right now that are either underh2o on their homes, or "house poor" because their mortgage is so large.  Screw that!



It's sickening actually.  When I see what it costs to heat my 1750sq foot house, I wonder about these 5k Sqft mcmansions near me.  Fine if you want to pay $1.5m for your house, but it seems somewhat selfish to the earth if you then spend gobs of resources to heat and cool the huge thing.  There are some of those on my street - one occupied by a single guy, one by a couple with no kids, one by a couple with their kid grown, and the biggest is by another empty next couple.  My family of 5 crams into 1750sq feet, and I really don't feel a need for another foot of space (could use some updates for sure lol..but space?  naw...).  Window AC that is used about 5 days/year...whereas these mcmansions are climate controlled bubbles...$$$$$$.  Because we go small, we can afford to have a small ski house, for less mortgage and taxes than people pay for their mcmansions.  We haven't had cable TV in 15 years - we're pretty simple, I don't think 'stuff' means a lick of anything to my life.  If you saw me and my ski equipment you'd understand... I finally bought my first pair of new skis in years in June...rest have been used...and I can't tell a difference - if you can ski, you can ski anything...focus on skills, not the gear.  Of course...our kids get all the new crap haha...  Somethings like helmets and gear to keep you warm I will spring on, but youll never see me keeping up with the Joneses (actually, I'll blow them away on the slopes in  my crap gear lol).


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 29, 2014)

The McMansion trend seems to be dying a bit here on the NH Seacoast.  A lot of the new development I'm seeing are advertised as "smart size" houses and are in the 1700-2300sf range.  That would still be a very large house compared to what was built in the past (excluding Victorian era), but it's an improvement over the 3-5K square foot home proliferation of the past 20 years. 

My wife and are bursting at the seems in a 728 sqft one level condo and looking to move, but even when we have kids I doubt I'd ever see myself in some huge ass home.  I'd rather go the route you did SkiFanE and have two smaller homes, than one massive one.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 29, 2014)

SkiFanE said:


> I finally bought my first pair of new skis in years in June...*rest have been used*...and I can't tell a difference - if you can ski, you can ski anything...focus on skills, not the gear.



I've had such great experiences buying used skis that I'll never buy new again.  I finally added a powder ski to the quiver last month.  I'll probably only use them 2 to 5 days per season, but I dont care because I paid < 1/3 what these skis/bindings would have cost when they were new just two seasons ago in 2012/2013.  Let someone else depreciate the helloutof them.



deadheadskier said:


> *The McMansion trend seems to be dying a bit here on the NH Seacoast. * A lot of the new development I'm seeing are advertised as "smart size" houses and are in the 1700-2300sf range.  That would still be a very large house compared to what was built in the past (excluding Victorian era), but it's an improvement over the 3-5K square foot home proliferation of the past 20 years.



It's largely went the way of the dodo bird here in NJ too, and I live in the 3rd wealthiest county in America.  But even here they're NOT selling briskly as they once did.  Plenty of "FOR SALE" signs on them.  IMO, there has been a recent psychological shift post this recession on the part of Americans whereby a reality check has set in that there are numerous drawbacks to these ginormous houses.  Cost of maintaining, cost of mortgage, cost of heating and cooling, fear of forward Real Estate price risk given you're tying up SO much of your net worth all in one asset, etc...   That and I think "the American Dream" is no longer considered something you "must" do.  If you look at new construction in this country, rental units, condos, even new homes for rental etc... it's booming.


----------



## mriceyman (Sep 29, 2014)

Some of these mansions by us in nj have a property tax of 30 grand! Insanity


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## SkiFanE (Sep 29, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I've had such great experiences buying used skis that I'll never buy new again.  I finally added a powder ski to the quiver last month.  I'll probably only use them 2 to 5 days per season, but I dont care because I paid < 1/3 what these skis/bindings would have cost when they were new just two seasons ago in 2012/2013.  Let someone else depreciate the helloutof them.
> 
> 
> 
> It's largely went the way of the dodo bird here in NJ too, and I live in the 3rd wealthiest county in America.  But even here they're NOT selling briskly as they once did.  Plenty of "FOR SALE" signs on them.  IMO, there has been a recent psychological shift post this recession on the part of Americans whereby a reality check has set in that there are numerous drawbacks to these ginormous houses.  Cost of maintaining, cost of mortgage, cost of heating and cooling, fear of forward Real Estate price risk given you're tying up SO much of your net worth all in one asset, etc...   That and I think "the American Dream" is no longer considered something you "must" do.  If you look at new construction in this country, rental units, condos, even new homes for rental etc... it's booming.



I ski on SL race skis - so have had luck getting them from racers - in good shape, babied - and I use them til every last bit of edge is gone.  Looked around and couldn't find any this spring - mine backup to the old pair finally started flopping after last edging lol...nothing left.  So saw some new Volkl SL race skiis (forget the name, but they are one step down from WC, but more like beer-league) - $499 for them with bindings and shipping...I'll get 5 years out of them at least, I hope.  I did buy new custom mid-fats about 4 years ago - like you I think I got 2 days on them last year - as soon as the untracked is gone - I'm done with them, nothing like my SL for the bumps.

McMansion and tear-down fever is still huge in my area.  Honestly, at 1750 and on a beautiful acre of land in a beautiful neighborhood - mine is in that category or one that will be blown to bits and enlarged to 4000.  We had an architect look at ours and devise a plan for a great room type thing...and at $100k to do what we wanted...and then the extra few grand in taxes...decided not worth, already one kid out of house at college, and I guess space is just not worth the price.  We're ditching our town as soon as kids are out of the schools (10 years). But houses are demolished like crazy around me - nothing left for young families, it's sad.


----------



## jimk (Sep 29, 2014)

Perhaps the switch I've seen on the McMansion thing in the last 5-10 years in DC area is an increase in the number of youngish upwardly mobile couples readjusting the goal for a million dollar piece of real estate.  Instead of a giant mansion fairly far out in the suburbs, they are going for gentrified old townhouse in the inner city.  I suppose there are some nice conservation benefits in that trend, but cost to home buyer is about the same.


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 29, 2014)

When we purchased our house I insisted that we would never be a slave to our home.  If, God forbid, one of us were to lose our job, we could still easily make our mortgage payment.  I've never regretted that decision.


----------



## dlague (Sep 29, 2014)

I also think that the largest adult segment - baby boomers - have adult children who have not been in their careers too long and the parents are downsizing.  I for one, have three out of four kids in their early twenties and out of the house.  Not that we have a mansion but, we live on 2.5 acres and I am tired of the maintenance of the house and yard.  We are in the downsizing stage an want something maintenance free.   i also think that many 20-30 somethings have seen parent who work their butts off with their homes and they want non of that and would prefer to spend their resources on fun stuff!


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 29, 2014)

I have never wanted to live in a condominium, but I can see how that may change when I am older and don't want to worry about maintenance.  There is a lot to be said for a condo at that stage of life.


----------



## dlague (Sep 29, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> I have never wanted to live in a condominium, but I can see how that may change when I am older and don't want to worry about maintenance.  There is a lot to be said for a condo at that stage of life.



I am a ways from retirement - however, my wife and I are setting the stages to have a place to stay on the cape during the summer around the National Sea Shore (nowhere near Hyannis and neighboring towns) and then having a condo in ski country for the Winter.


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 29, 2014)

dlague said:


> I am a ways from retirement - however, my wife and I are setting the stages to have a place to stay on the cape during the summer around the National Sea Shore (nowhere near Hyannis and neighboring towns) and then having a condo in ski country for the Winter.


I know some people who moved to the Cape after retirement.  Most have regretted the decision.  They have all told me that winters are miserable and spring is depressingly long and cold (thanks to the cold ocean water) and that just when the weather becomes nice, the place gets slammed with people.  I've spent a lot of time on the Cape, and I have always felt that the crowds can be avoided or managed.  I still think it would be a great place to retire - but I am definitely concerned.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 29, 2014)

mriceyman said:


> *Some of these mansions by us in nj have a property tax of 30 grand! Insanity*



Agreed, but those folks can likely afford it.  What's far more financially suicidal are the folks paying $10,000 to $15,000 in property taxes per year in New Jersey on what are, frankly, fairly modest homes.  These are middle-class folks, and it's a horrible impairment to them and their families financial future.  It's mindboggling to me how few people seem to understand this.   They just pay.  And dont even get me started on New Jersey's unconstitutional, _"We'll hurt you bad if you try to leave"_ tax.  All reasons while I'll either continue to rent in NJ, or possibly buy some day in eastern PA (which is now a "boom town" from fleeing Jerseyans).



dlague said:


> I also think that *the largest adult segment - baby boomers*......... *tired of the maintenance of the house and yard.  We are in the downsizing stage*


   This is just one small sliver of my bearishness on US Real Estate.


----------



## dlague (Sep 29, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> I know some people who moved to the Cape after retirement.  Most have regretted the decision.  They have all told me that winters are miserable and spring is depressingly long and cold (thanks to the cold ocean water) and that just when the weather becomes nice, the place gets slammed with people.  I've spent a lot of time on the Cape, and I have always felt that the crowds can be avoided or managed.  I still think it would be a great place to retire - but I am definitely concerned.



Hence, summer in the the Cape and Winter in the mountains (VT or NH).  We visit the cape every summer and generally stay around Orleans, Chatham area not as crowded as Yarmouth, Dennis Port or Hyannis.  We love the outer cape beaches!  Decent surf by east coast standards.


----------



## Smellytele (Sep 29, 2014)

SkiFanE said:


> It's sickening actually.  When I see what it costs to heat my 1750sq foot house, I wonder about these 5k Sqft mcmansions near me.



40-50 years ago 1750sq foot home would have been a large home.


----------



## St. Bear (Sep 29, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> And dont even get me started on New Jersey's unconstitutional, _"We'll hurt you bad if you try to leave"_ tax.  All reasons while I'll either continue to rent in NJ, or possibly buy some day in eastern PA (which is now a "boom town" from fleeing Jerseyans).



Only taxed on the profit from sale.  If I can get a profit to sell my house, I'll happily pay the tax.


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 29, 2014)

SkiFanE said:


> It's sickening actually.  When I see what it costs to heat my 1750sq foot house





Smellytele said:


> 40-50 years ago 1750sq foot home would have been a large home.


1250sq. here. Plenty of room for my wife, daughter & me. We don't even use our finished basement or attic (except for storage, laundry room & extra full bathroom) Mortgage paid & inexpensive real eastate taxes ($3200). Heat in the winter & A/C in summer are still expensive. That's why I love spring & fall, don't need those things.


----------



## mbedle (Sep 29, 2014)

Actually, the average size of a house in 1973 was 1,660 square feet. Today its around 2,700 square feet. What I found interesting is, if you look at a lot of the row homes in Allentown, PA built in the early 1900's, they all appear to be between 1,500 square feet and 2,000 square feet. I'm guessing that they were smaller back than, but people finished off back porches to increase the Kitchen sizes and finished the attics as additional bedrooms.


----------



## Smellytele (Sep 29, 2014)




----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 29, 2014)

Smellytele said:


>


Geeze my 1250sq. house was built in 1929. Must have been huge back in those days.


----------



## mbedle (Sep 29, 2014)

Interesting, but I wasn't referencing the same thing as your chart. I can see the 1950 size for new homes being true. Look at places like Levittown, PA and NY.


----------



## Smellytele (Sep 29, 2014)

mbedle said:


> Interesting, but I wasn't referencing the same thing as your chart. I can see the 1950 size for new homes being true. Look at places like Levittown, PA and NY.



Actually what you were saying is pretty dead on with that.


----------



## SkiFanE (Sep 29, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> 1250sq. here. Plenty of room for my wife, daughter & me. We don't even use our finished basement or attic (except for storage, laundry room & extra full bathroom) Mortgage paid & inexpensive real eastate taxes ($3200). Heat in the winter & A/C in summer are still expensive. That's why I love spring & fall, don't need those things.



It was built in 1969 and for its size it has 4 bedrooms and 2.5 baths, so it really has all the space needed.  The upstairs is perfect, the downstairs is just badly arranged - would love to just knock it out and rebuild in same space - otherwise the size would be fine.  Within 6x6 ft area at back door is laundry "closet", back door and door to garage all in same place...major clusterfuck at the end of our FR (winter with boots, coats, snowpants...freaking mess..we kick shoes off at door, don't wear in house, so always a pile).  Thought when we bought having laundry so close to Living area would be nice..yeah..if dryers and frontloaders didnt make so much damn noise.  But we bought for the location, house just was what it was...because in the end...location is the value, not the house.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 29, 2014)

I'd rather have a small house and 20 acres, than a big house and 2 acres.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 29, 2014)

I'd rather have a small house and an acre, with 19 acres surrounding me preserved as conservation land.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 29, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> I'd rather have a small house and an acre, with 19 acres surrounding me preserved as conservation land.



That would be awesome.   There's actually quite a bit of "State Game Land" in PA where something like that's possible.


----------



## spring_mountain_high (Sep 29, 2014)

mister moose said:


> All?  No, there are exceptions which fuel your shortsighted, judgmental opinion.  Yes, most do.
> 
> Although I'm sure you think most bosses just sit around with their feet up, telling everyone what to do, and they got there by luck or graft, and you could do a better job than your boss, or even his boss, and that the farther up the ladder you get, the easier it is.



i think our definition of wealth may differ, but talk about short-sighted and judgmental...seems like i may have touched the nerve of a do-nothing middle manager...better be careful they don't figure out how useless you are or you'll be on the bread line soon...companies all over, including mine, at my direction, are mercilessly thinning the ranks of your ilk and are much better off for it.


----------



## snoseek (Sep 29, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I'd rather have a small house and 20 acres, than a big house and 2 acres.




Yep, agree


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 29, 2014)

2 acres is more than enough for this guy!


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 29, 2014)

I like living in the NYC in my small house.

What that has to do with the future of the ski industry is beyond me.


----------



## mister moose (Sep 29, 2014)

spring_mountain_high said:


> i think our definition of wealth may differ, but talk about short-sighted and judgmental...seems like i may have touched the nerve of a do-nothing middle manager...better be careful they don't figure out how useless you are or you'll be on the bread line soon...companies all over, including mine, at my direction, are mercilessly thinning the ranks of your ilk and are much better off for it.



My personal definition of wealth is being able to live on less than you make.  What's yours?

As for the rest, I have no idea what you are talking about, none of it is relevant to my prior post, or accurate about me personally.  But since you seemed to have missed my point, let me spell it out a little further - 

I have met a lot of very wealthy people.  Most were hard working people.  Only relatively few were trust fund types.  Even many of the second or third generation were working every day.  I read your prior comment as scoffing at how wealthy people didn't really earn it... Is there some other interpretation?


----------



## dlague (Sep 29, 2014)

What was this thread about?


.......


----------



## Not Sure (Sep 29, 2014)

dlague said:


> What was this thread about?
> 
> 
> .......



Golf and Tennis


----------



## dlague (Sep 29, 2014)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> Golf and Tennis



Thought so at ski areas right?


.......


----------



## drjeff (Sep 29, 2014)

mister moose said:


> My personal definition of wealth is being able to live on less than you make.  What's yours?
> 
> As for the rest, I have no idea what you are talking about, none of it is relevant to my prior post, or accurate about me personally.  But since you seemed to have missed my point, let me spell it out a little further -
> 
> I have met a lot of very wealthy people.  Most were hard working people.  Only relatively few were trust fund types.  Even many of the second or third generation were working every day.  I read your prior comment as scoffing at how wealthy people didn't really earn it... Is there some other interpretation?



Agree 100%!

Most people who are what society deems "wealthy" earned it, and very often are still putting in lots of hours a week still earning it.  

I look at it this way. Personally, I begrudge nobody what they earn. If they have a certain talent or skill set that convinces enough people to pay them some $$ that adds up to lots of $$ earned annually, then great for them.  If you've got a trust fund situation where the trust fund baby has no appreciation of what it took to earn that $$ and then they decide to go ahead and "waste" it, well good then for the people who turn the trust fund "waste" into their own enhanced earnings!

All I know is some of my ski friends, who make WAY more $$ than I do via their Wall St. Hedge fund jobs, are some of the most down to earth, great family people who you've ever met.

House wise, my wife and I expanded from 2300 to 3400 8yrs ago. Most of that expansion sq. footage was from the building of an "in law suite" - since when the likely inevitable move in of either one of my parents or my in-laws occurrs, I'm not sure if even a 10,000sq ft house would provide me with enough space to maintain my day to day sanity!! :lol:


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 29, 2014)

spring_mountain_high said:


> i think our definition of wealth may differ, but talk about short-sighted and judgmental...seems like i may have touched the nerve of a do-nothing middle manager...better be careful they don't figure out how useless you are or you'll be on the bread line soon...companies all over, including mine, at my direction, are mercilessly thinning the ranks of your ilk and are much better off for it.


You'll most likely be next.

Have a good life.


----------



## Not Sure (Sep 29, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> You'll most likely be next.
> 
> Have a good life.


I think he just admitted he's a dick?


----------



## spring_mountain_high (Sep 29, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> You'll most likely be next.
> 
> Have a good life.



doubtful...i've eschewed management for positions where i create something measurable or tangible....but who knows!  lot of raw nerves in the middle-management set, it would appear, and for good reason!

already having one, thanks!  and to you as well!



			
				Siliconebobsquarepants said:
			
		

> I think he just admitted he's a dick?​




rather be a dick than a swallower

in all seriousness, tho, this was in response to someone who ironically called me judgmental whilst making his own judgmental assumptions...but i feel for him...having to wonder, day in and day out if this is the day they figure out just how useless he is must be tough...i've seen it everywhere i go, when a company struggles, especially a larger one, you can almost always point to a bloated, do-nothing management structure...so many folks i've seen truly work hard to get into management, and then coast, as if it's some kind of lifetime achievement award or end-game

my original point was that there are a lot of people who were born on third base but think they hit a triple​


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 29, 2014)

That is definitely true in the hotel industry.  Hotel GMs are some of the laziest 9 to 5ers I've ever seen.


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 29, 2014)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> I think he just admitted he's a dick?


Yep.


----------



## spring_mountain_high (Sep 29, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> Yep.



if pointing out the truth makes me a dick, then i'm richard fucking nixon...truth hurts sometimes...i'm surprised you fox-con capitalists disagree...i thought you guys were all for 'trimming the fat'....unless that fat is you, i guess


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 29, 2014)

spring_mountain_high said:


> doubtful...i've eschewed management for positions where i create something measurable or tangible....but who knows!  lot of raw nerves in the middle-management set, it would appear, and for good reason!


No worries here. Happily retired.


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 29, 2014)

spring_mountain_high said:


> rather be a dick than a swallower


Sounds like that comes from experience being both.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 29, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> Yep.



+4 (I think I'm the fourth to agree)

This isn't the first time Spring Mountain High has made disparaging comments on this board about people who are wealthy.  Someone has some _serious_ jealousy issues.   

Personally I think it's healthier to work hard and aim to be more successful in life, than to sit and stew and fill the heart with hatred for those with more than I.   Though I do imagine it's psychologically easier to trick oneself into believing others were _"given"_ what they have in some "unfair" racquet, than to admit to oneself that perhaps you're in part responsible for life not turning out so successfully.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 29, 2014)

I think your assertion that SMH has some sort of jealousy issues against wealthy people is way off mark.  I do happen to agree with some of his statements regarding management. It exists on a wide scale.  If it didn't there wouldn't be so many successful parody TV shows and movies like Office Space that we can all laugh at having experienced it in the professional world.  

People can judge what they see on a computer screen all they want.  I doubt he cares.  I've met him skiing before and thought he was a great guy.


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 30, 2014)

I think that it is patently unfair to assume that a wealthy person has not had to work hard for their money.

It's also patently unfair to assume that a poor person has had the same resources and support as a child and student that certain wealthy people have had.

I also think that it is fair to ask ourselves why the welfare state has done nothing to end the cycle of poverty.  My father grew up in a poor family in a poor town.  But they worked their assess off because it was the difference between eating and not eating.  Those poor people had very successful children and never asked for help from the government.  When things got really bad they relied on each other, whether it was their neighbor, their church, or some other local organization to which they were accountable.  When I look at the poor now, I don't see the determination and work ethic that used to exist among the poor.  IMHO, that is a HUGE problem - especially since their children are adopting this mentality.

There have always been outliers, but there seems to have been a general shift that is not a good shift.


----------



## witch hobble (Sep 30, 2014)

I heard that the base cafeteria at Cannon will be accepting food stamps.....and FSC will be providing subsidized childcare at Mittersill based on an earned income sliding scale.


----------



## machski (Sep 30, 2014)

As to the feeder hill question, some of the big resorts actually care about them and try to help out.  

http://www.newenglandskiindustry.com/viewstory.php?storyid=162


----------



## Edd (Sep 30, 2014)

machski said:


> As to the feeder hill question, some of the big resorts actually care about them and try to help out.
> 
> http://www.newenglandskiindustry.com/viewstory.php?storyid=162



That's cool. I think SR did that recently for another small hill. Black, maybe?


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Sep 30, 2014)

Edd said:


> That's cool. I think SR did that recently for another small hill. Black, maybe?



I believe it was Big Squaw they helped get rolling, and other bigger resorts stepped in to help as well if I remember right.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 30, 2014)

Do what you can with what you got and make the most of every opportunity that comes your way. Wasting time hating on others for what they have (whether through hard work or luck) is just a waste of time and energy. Work hard, put in extra time, and you will be successful at whatever you do. Sometimes the results take longer than others but plenty of people have worked their way up from nothing. There is a long list of CEO'S that started as interns or entry level. 

Tony Robbins out....


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 30, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> *I think that it is patently unfair to assume that a wealthy person has not had to work hard for their money.*



Unfair isnt the correct word, "moronic" is.



VTKilarney said:


> I also think that* it is fair to ask ourselves why the welfare state has done nothing to end the cycle of poverty.*



While at it, take that one step farther and ask why the cities/rural areas/regions that have received the most in welfare are chronically still the most poor.  Bonus points if you begin to make the connection between systemic long-term welfare and geographical decline.  Turns out that all being kept on life support does is keep you on life support.  Never-mind the fact that numerous economic studies have shown people are better off if the safety net is slowly removed than keeping them in perma dependance.  But healthy people & families getting back on their own two feet doesn't get you votes, financial enslavement and perma dependance does.



VTKilarney said:


> *When I look at the poor now, I don't see the determination and work ethic that used to exist among the poor.  IMHO, that is a HUGE problem -* especially since their children are adopting this mentality.  There have always been outliers, but there seems to have been a general shift that is not a good shift.



Live in NYC for a while.  You've never SEEN such _"determination and work ethic" _when it comes to gaming government programs.  Many of these people are clearly smart enough to earn full-blown law degrees if the manner in which they've maneuvered the paperwork piles, exceptions, extensions, loop holes, rent givebacks, and sub-paragraphs of every NY State and New York City program they can get their mits on is any indication.  Don't know how?  No problem, someone in the neighborhood will teach you!   You have to see this to believe it.  LOL.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 30, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> *Do what you can with what you got and make the  most of every opportunity that comes your way. Wasting time hating on  others for what they have (whether through hard work or luck) is just a  waste of time and energy.*



Amen.



witch hobble said:


> *I heard that the base cafeteria at Cannon will be accepting food stamps.*...



Not sure if serious?


----------



## witch hobble (Sep 30, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Not sure if serious?



I often feel the same way about your posts.......but, for the record: if I'm throwing daffys, either on the hill or on the internet, I'm not being very serious.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 30, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> But healthy people & families getting back on their own two feet doesn't get you votes, financial enslavement and perma dependance does.



False

In fact the opposite is essentially true.

The parts of this country most reliant on federal help vote for the party that promises to cut social programs.  The parts of this country least reliant on federal help vote for the party that promises to expand social programs.


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 30, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> False
> 
> In fact the opposite is essentially true.
> 
> The parts of this country most reliant on federal help vote for the party that promises to cut social programs.  The parts of this country least reliant on federal help vote for the party that promises to expand social programs.




You know the saying about statistics. 

You know better than to use some Liberal talking point at 100% face value. 

Out here in Wyoming we are constantly slammed for sucking on the govt teet, when in reality a lot of our government "assistance" is just keeping the highways maintained. Rural areas have low populations, so the per capita spending makes it look much worse than it is. 

And you completely disregard the concept that maybe these rural communities don't actual want the handouts for all the reasons Benedict said. 

You honestly believe places like NYC dont have large populations of poor people? Please....


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 30, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> You honestly believe places like NYC dont have large populations of poor people? Please....



did I say that?

And wax it however you want, what I said is true and has been for a long time.  And if they didn't want those funds, they as individuals or states don't have to apply for them.


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 30, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> did I say that?
> 
> And wax it however you want, what I said is true and has been for a long time.  And if they didn't want those funds, they as individuals or states don't have to apply for them.



We could go on for pages on this, but there are strings attached to everything. 

If you look into it, no state can pick and choose which programs they want and which ones they dont, as they are all intertwined. Like federal road funding being tied to the drinking age. Sure a state can let a kid drink at 18, but wont be able to maintain their roads as a result. 

You know this so quit giving the rubes argument.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 30, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> False
> 
> In fact the opposite is essentially true.
> 
> The parts of this country most reliant on federal help vote for the party that promises to cut social programs.  The parts of this country least reliant on federal help vote for the party that promises to expand social programs.



I think a lot depends on where you live. Southern states are more as you described. Same can be said for suburban vs. urban.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 30, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> We could go on for pages on this, but there are strings attached to everything.
> 
> If you look into it, no state can pick and choose which programs they want and which ones they dont, as they are all intertwined. Like federal road funding being tied to the drinking age. Sure a state can let a kid drink at 18, but wont be able to maintain their roads as a result.
> 
> You know this so quit giving the rubes argument.



The argument was how to win votes.  Well, the guys who promise the most handouts don't get the votes in the states that take the most handouts.  The opposite of what BG said.


----------



## SkiFanE (Sep 30, 2014)

What everyone in this poor debate is forgetting is that a FT hard working person can still be poor. Minimum wage will hardly allow one to live with decent food shelter and healthcare. Period. So they may STILL need public assistance.  So while Walmart is paying people shitty wages, offering few FT jobs with healthcare  and stuffing pockets of the owners and shareholders, us tax paying suckers are paying for their care. It's a fucking racket.  THAT is the problem with the poor, not their work ethic.  Sure there is abuse  -  just as I'm sure there are abusers of college ski passes, switching tickets, reselling vouchers... It's the nature of people wanting "deals". But no reason to vilify all - many people need it and get back into their groove once their problems have passed.  I bet everyone of is knows someone on SS for a disability...

Be nice people. I work at a safety net hospital...no one wants to be poor and if you think even the abusers are above poverty level, you're wrong.  Forget about the abusers...they are a very small portion. I wish every person had the opportunities I was given, but they're not. And even if they have my work ethic, they still may be poor.


----------



## spring_mountain_high (Sep 30, 2014)

i grew up in the projects, single mom...we'd have been homeless but for gov't subsidized housing...she worked her ass off, sent herself to college with the help of gov't backed loans, and insisted that i would go to college as well...i earned a half ride playing lacrosse, paid for one year with work study, and the final year with gov't backed loans...have paid them all off, worked non-stop since graduating 20 years ago...she did better than her mother, and i did better than her, resulting in more tax revenue for all of us, and this is why it behooves a government to assist its citizens...a hand up, not a hand out

i know there are people who work very hard for what they have, and i'm one of them...i guess most would consider me upper-middle class...difference between me and the fox and friends echo chamber morons is that i don't want to cut everyone else off now that i have something...i didn't forget how i got here, and i'm all for helping someone who truly needs it

i also know that there are people who were born into a position of extreme privilege who think they are somehow above others, that they somehow deserve their privilege more than others and don't want to share the pie that was handed to them with anyone...born on 3rd base thinking they hit a triple...these people can eat my ass


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 30, 2014)




----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 30, 2014)

More please!


----------



## snoseek (Sep 30, 2014)

SkiFanE said:


> What everyone in this poor debate is forgetting is that a FT hard working person can still be poor. Minimum wage will hardly allow one to live with decent food shelter and healthcare. Period. So they may STILL need public assistance.  So while Walmart is paying people shitty wages, offering few FT jobs with healthcare  and stuffing pockets of the owners and shareholders, us tax paying suckers are paying for their care. It's a fucking racket.  THAT is the problem with the poor, not their work ethic.  Sure there is abuse  -  just as I'm sure there are abusers of college ski passes, switching tickets, reselling vouchers... It's the nature of people wanting "deals". But no reason to vilify all - many people need it and get back into their groove once their problems have passed.  I bet everyone of is knows someone on SS for a disability...
> 
> Be nice people. I work at a safety net hospital...no one wants to be poor and if you think even the abusers are above poverty level, you're wrong.  Forget about the abusers...they are a very small portion. I wish every person had the opportunities I was given, but they're not. And even if they have my work ethic, they still may be poor.





Well said.


----------



## jimk (Oct 1, 2014)

spring_mountain_high said:


> i grew up in the projects, single mom...we'd have been homeless but for gov't subsidized housing...she worked her ass off, sent herself to college with the help of gov't backed loans, and insisted that i would go to college as well...i earned a half ride playing lacrosse, paid for one year with work study, and the final year with gov't backed loans...have paid them all off, worked non-stop since graduating 20 years ago...she did better than her mother, and i did better than her, resulting in more tax revenue for all of us, and this is why it behooves a government to assist its citizens...a hand up, not a hand out
> 
> i know there are people who work very hard for what they have, and i'm one of them...i guess most would consider me upper-middle class...difference between me and the fox and friends echo chamber morons is that i don't want to cut everyone else off now that i have something...i didn't forget how i got here, and i'm all for helping someone who truly needs it
> 
> i also know that there are people who were born into a position of extreme privilege who think they are somehow above others, that they somehow deserve their privilege more than others and don't want to share the pie that was handed to them with anyone...born on 3rd base thinking they hit a triple...these people can eat my ass



:flag:Good post.  
I have come around to feeling similarly about immigrants.  There are millions (almost literally) that have moved into the Wash DC area in recent decades.  They work their butts off and do jobs none of us native born Americans would touch.  I think we need to help a great many of these people fit in.  They are working on the dream our ancestors chased in bygone years.  With the changes in demographics and fertility rates we're going to need the taxes of these newcomers to pay for our old age benefits


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 1, 2014)

jimk said:


> :flag:Good post.
> I have come around to feeling similarly about immigrants.  There are millions (almost literally) that have moved into the Wash DC area in recent decades.  They work their butts off and do jobs none of us native born Americans would touch.  I think we need to help a great many of these people fit in.  They are working on the dream our ancestors chased in bygone years.  With the changes in demographics and fertility rates we're going to need the taxes of these newcomers to pay for our old age benefits



+1 

The talking heads on Faux news would have you believe they are all leaches gaming the system, sitting on street corners and playing with their Obama phones.  That's not been my experience.  Most work two jobs, as you said, doing jobs natives wouldn't touch.........just like my family did when they immigrated here from Ireland generations ago.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 1, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> take that one step farther and *ask why the* cities/*rural areas/regions that have received the most in welfare are chronically still the most poor.*  Bonus points if you begin to make the connection between systemic long-term welfare and geographical decline.



Ummm.......


deadheadskier said:


> False
> 
> In fact the opposite is essentially true.
> 
> The parts of this country most reliant on federal help vote for the party that promises to cut social programs.  The parts of this country least reliant on federal help vote for the party that promises to expand social programs.



You're either not even reading what people say before you reply or there's a reading comprehension failure.   I specifically stated that rural areas in some cases are top receiving areas (South basically).   That said, AdironRider is also 100% correct in that this has been blown out of proportion and used as a DNC talking point due to lies, damn lies, and statistics.  It's definitely true in places like Mississippi, parts of Tennessee, etc....  But if you genuinely believe that all-in these small population areas are truly receiving more than Chicago, LA, New York City, and numerous other cities, well then.......... 



AdironRider said:


> Out here in Wyoming we are constantly slammed for sucking on the govt teet, when in reality* a lot of our government "assistance" is just keeping the highways maintained. Rural areas have low populations, so the per capita spending makes it look much worse than it is.*



Exactly.  You want to quickly turn this from a DNC talking point to an RNC talking point?  Simple.  Run the exact same analysis, but do it by  km^2.  Lol.

The roads money in general is subject to such ridiculous waste.  Look at a state like Vermont that only has 2 highways.  You get a road project there and the same project that takes 5 weeks elsewhere seems to take 5 years in Vermont so they can sssssssttttttttrrrrrrrreeeeeeeetttttccccccchhhhhhh the money.  At least there's no potholes on 89.  They don't have time to develop given the road gets repaved every 12 minutes.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 1, 2014)

While we're debunking talking points.



SkiFanE said:


> What everyone in this poor debate is forgetting is that *a FT hard working person can still be poor. Minimum wage will hardly allow one to live with decent food shelter and healthcare.* Period.



I agree 100% with the gist of what you're saying, except that the minimum wage part.

The fact is, there are very few people in America that are actually paid Federal Minimum wage.  There are about 330 Million Americans, and only roughly 3 Million are paid that rate.  That is < 1% of Americans.  In other-words, > 99% of people are earning MORE than Federal Miminum wage.  

Also?   A huge chunk, greater than 50%, of those 3 Millions folks are under the age of 25 and are high school or college students.  Others are in their first job, learning VALUABLE SKILLS that will help them one-day more UP the pay ladder, which, statistically, almost ALL of them do. These minimum wage jobs are not the "abomination" they're politiclaly made out to be, rather, they are valuable on-the-job training. * Financially speaking, if EVER there was a "red herring" economic topic, it's this myth that a huge percentage of the American public is struggling to survive on minimum wage, usually at the mercy of some "giant, evil, business".*

Which segues nicely into the next totally false talking point....



SkiFanE said:


> So while *Walmart is paying people shitty wages*



Despite what you've likely heard, WMT pays significantly higher than Federal Minimum wage.  

From WMT's own data, their average employee earns something like 80% more than minimum wage.  Even if you go with the "anti WMT crusaders" data instead (which removes all store managers, which is totally unfair, acting as if somehow the store managers aren't human beings earning a paycheck), you arrive at an hourly wage significantly higher than minimum wage.



SkiFanE said:


> *(Walmart) offering few FT jobs with healthcare*  and stuffing pockets of the owners and shareholders, us tax paying suckers are paying for their care. It's a fucking racket.



More than 1/2 of WMT's employees are FT, and they do get healthcare. 

 Look, I'm not saying that making $23,000 to $27,000 a year is a great job, but it's a job, it's a job with healthcare, and it's a job significantly above minimum wage.  All things that these BS talking points entirely say the opposite of.  Not to mention, for a lot of these people, if we're being entire honest they're dang lucky to have a job paying that ~$23,000.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 1, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> , if we're being entire honest they're dang lucky to have a job paying that ~$23,000.



Wow

That's harsh Rush


----------



## mister moose (Oct 1, 2014)

SkiFanE said:
			
		

> _What everyone in this poor debate is forgetting is that _*a FT hard working person can still be poor. Minimum wage will hardly allow one to live with decent food shelter and healthcare. Period.*




When I was starting out, I worked 2 or 3 jobs, drove a beater car, and had roommates.  Why should anyone only work 40 hours a week and get a 2 bedroom apartment all to themselves until they earn it?


----------



## MadMadWorld (Oct 1, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> While we're debunking talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And I'm sure people will hate this but joining the military is a great option for so many people. They will provide you with food, shelter, clothing, technical skills, etc. And on top of that the GI Bill will pay for you to go to whatever institution of higher learning you want.


----------



## snoseek (Oct 1, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> And I'm sure people will hate this but joining the military is a great option for so many people. They will provide you with food, shelter, clothing, technical skills, etc. And on top of that the GI Bill will pay for you to go to whatever institution of higher learning you want.


GI bill is good for sure but for me it only assisted...a small fraction really.

I'm actually regretful sometimes of ever serving....in some ways it sort of fucked me up. Travelling was nice I guess.....


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 1, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> *Wow
> 
> That's harsh Rush*



Do you know what the real unemployment rate is in this country right now?
Do you know what the underemployment rate is in this country right now?
Do you know what that unemployment rate rises to when split out by workers without an education?

So yes, I'll confidently stand by that statement - $23,000 to $27,000 plus healthcare & benefits isn't anything unusual, and in 2014 there are millions of Americans who'd clamor for that FT job.  

And FYI, I gather this is going to shock you, but assuming a 2 individual home, that's pretty close to the 2013 median US household income.




mister moose said:


> [/B]
> 
> *When I was starting out, I worked 2 or 3 jobs, drove a beater car, and had roommates.  Why should anyone only work 40 hours a week and get a 2 bedroom apartment all to themselves until they earn it?*



Because entitlement.  I was the same as the above.  

I made probably about the $24,000 per year that DHS apparently thinks is sad & destitute, while living in an old, small apartment in Burlington, VT (not a cheap place to live either) with a roommate, and paying off college loans. 

 I still had fun with friends, managed to ski (by working a 2nd job at Stowe), was happy, and had to be extremely financially responsible.  And I didnt get or need a dime of government assistance.  I know, THE HORROR!


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 1, 2014)

The future of the ski industry:  Doomed to political stereotyping and ankle-biting


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 1, 2014)

jimk said:


> :flag:Good post.
> I have come around to feeling similarly about immigrants.  There are millions (almost literally) that have moved into the Wash DC area in recent decades.  They work their butts off and do jobs none of us native born Americans would touch.  I think we need to help a great many of these people fit in.  They are working on the dream our ancestors chased in bygone years.  With the changes in demographics and fertility rates we're going to need the taxes of these newcomers to pay for our old age benefits



I have no issue with legal immigrants


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 1, 2014)

Smellytele said:


> I have no issue with legal immigrants


dito


----------



## Scruffy (Oct 1, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> While we're debunking talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, there are very few people in America that are actually paid Federal Minimum wage.  There are about 330 Million Americans, and only roughly 3 Million are paid that rate.  That is < 1% of Americans.  In other-words, > 99% of people are earning MORE than Federal Miminum wage.



Why are you using total population? Even at "full employment", 100% of Americans would not be in the work force ( i.e. babies, stay at home parents, grandma, etc.. )

To support your point though: The BLS currently clocks the current percent of hourly wage earners at 4.3 percent, it was 13.4 in 1979. Exempt workers are assumed to be making way over minimum wage.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 1, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Do you know what the real unemployment rate is in this country right now?
> Do you know what the underemployment rate is in this country right now?
> Do you know what that unemployment rate rises to when split out by workers without an education?
> 
> ...



You don't think I did the same thing? Hell I worked full time straight through all levels of college and maintained 2nd jobs until I was 30.

Sorry, with your attitude towards entitlement  programs and low wage workers I misread your statement as saying those employees weren't worthy of 23k.  My bad.


----------



## drjeff (Oct 1, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> +1
> 
> The talking heads on Faux news would have you believe they are all leaches gaming the system, sitting on street corners and playing with their Obama phones.  That's not been my experience.  Most work two jobs, as you said, doing jobs natives wouldn't touch.........just like my family did when they immigrated here from Ireland generations ago.



Using the sample size of about 700 patients that I have in my practice who are on state assistance (is it even politically correct to say "welfare" any more? ;-) ) Are there hardworking folks who are just going through a tough time in life and are on state assistance for a SHORT time until they either finish their education/retraining or find a new job within their existing skill set? Yup. But in my cross section at least, this is a minority group within this population subset.  A larger amount of this population set in my experience of 15+ years working on people on state assistance is looking at "welfare" as not a short term economic help mechanism, but as a "career" and there are plenty of people who have learned and continue to try to abuse the system since they DO feel like they are entitled to "something for nothing"

I probably can't go a week in my office where I don't have at least 1 patient on state assistance (which by the way is "free" for them but often has me treating them at a financial loss, especially if they are a "healthy" adult - seriously) ask me to commit fraud by asking if I can place a tooth colored filling in a back tooth (state assistance in CT doesn't cover tooth colored fillings in an adults back teeth) instead of the silver filling that their insurance does cover. They seem offended when I tell them that if they want that tooth colored filling in a back tooth that per their insurance, to which I signed a contract that I an legally bound to follow, that they are responsible for the fee entirely themselves. This happens at a much lower rate (almost never) with my patient subset that isn't on state assistance.

There ARE some bad apples out there who willingly abuse the system out of a sense of entitlement, and this is in my experience a rapidily growing part of the population today


----------



## MadMadWorld (Oct 1, 2014)

drjeff said:


> Using the sample size of about 700 patients that I have in my practice who are on state assistance (is it even politically correct to say "welfare" any more? ;-) ) Are there hardworking folks who are just going through a tough time in life and are on state assistance for a SHORT time until they either finish their education/retraining or find a new job within their existing skill set? Yup. But in my cross section at least, this is a minority group within this population subset.  A larger amount of this population set in my experience of 15+ years working on people on state assistance is looking at "welfare" as not a short term economic help mechanism, but as a "career" and there are plenty of people who have learned and continue to try to abuse the system since they DO feel like they are entitled to "something for nothing"
> 
> I probably can't go a week in my office where I don't have at least 1 patient on state assistance (which by the way is "free" for them but often has me treating them at a financial loss, especially if they are a "healthy" adult - seriously) ask me to commit fraud by asking if I can place a tooth colored filling in a back tooth (state assistance in CT doesn't cover tooth colored fillings in an adults back teeth) instead of the silver filling that their insurance does cover. They seem offended when I tell them that if they want that tooth colored filling in a back tooth that per their insurance, to which I signed a contract that I an legally bound to follow, that they are responsible for the fee entirely themselves. This happens at a much lower rate (almost never) with my patient subset that isn't on state assistance.
> 
> There ARE some bad apples out there who willingly abuse the system out of a sense of entitlement, and this is in my experience a rapidily growing part of the population today



And this is one of the many reasons why these programs need reform.


----------



## Puck it (Oct 1, 2014)

My brothers, sister and I are products of social program.  My father was a disabled vet.  My mom did not work so we were on VA benefits.  We all went to college thru VA benefits of my dad's, but we were raised to do better.


----------

