Black Phantom
Active member
billski should be allowed to ski for free everywhere. Should save at least one area a year from potential bankruptcy.
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Ah, the good old days of reasonable ticket prices...
- Thread starter billski
- Start date
billski
Active member
It could backfire and make them go bankrupt
I'll bet you never knew that billski is a Russian living in Belarus and has never skied a day in his life. He does dance well. Just as well they choose to deny my existence. Dance comrade, dance!
uke::blink:
Black Phantom
Active member
It could backfire and make them go bankrupt
I'll bet you never knew that billski is a Russian living in Belarus and has never skied a day in his life. He does dance well. Just as well they choose to deny my existence. Dance comrade, dance!
I'll bet the Russian billski doesn't bitch all day about the price of vodka!:flame:
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
Me too, I recall thinking $40 was "expensive" to ski.
Last year there was a thread with ski prices, and I adjusted the ticket prices of a few areas with inflation. What I was surprised to find out was that in general most areas increases truly werent that excessive. I'd do it again if I had enough mountain(s) ticket prices by year, as I'm and Excel dork and enjoy that sort of exercise.
Bingo.
Nothing is cheap in Vermont! This is a misnomer I find many Vermonters have, that they think their COL is good compared to much of America. Not so. It's an extremely expensive state to live in, high taxes, high'ish prices, lowish wages, etc....
WWF-VT
Well-known member
riverc0il
New member
True. But I just ran an inflation calculator on those numbers and relative to today's prices it was definitely much cheaper to ski back then based on that sample Obviously, a bigger sample would be needed to draw a more definite conclusion. But I think it is fair to say that walk up lift ticket prices are increasing faster than the inflation rate.
Yes. This is why my wife and I begrudgingly left.
Geoff
Well-known member
Labor is the dominant cost for any ski area.
Today, your lift ticket pays the interest on the loans that were used to buy the resort and to upgrade the infrastructure. ...or it goes to pay some Florida REIT. That's not how ski resorts were financed 30 years ago.
billski
Active member
Different but the same
This dynamic reminds me of colleges rate of increase, but for different reasons.
Colleges justify large building projects and luxurious dining facilities in order to stay "competitive." There is this opinion that more is better and that more will attract more. So you see tuition rising at astronomical rates. If you looked at the core product - education/instruction, I suspect you'd find it hasn't risen that much relative to inflation or CPI.
Contrast that to ski areas. The infrastructure improvement have done a lot to attract newbies and keep oldies - eliminating surface lifts, magic carpets, better grooming, shorter lines, bigger cafe. Much of this is to remain competitive, in the true sense.
If we left real estate out of the picture, I suppose we could keep ski ticket prices down, but staying with rope tows, just stayed with the greasy food, don't bother trying to have 100% coverage.
There is a much bigger pool of students for college, but the proportion is similar. There are 4,000 colleges (2 and 4 year) in the US for 20M students. (5,000 students/college) There are 622 ski areas, for about 5-8M skiers & boarders depending who you ask. (11,000 skiers/boarders per area)
While the market is different, it is a lot the same. Some of it comes down to expectation, some of it is competition. Much like the cold war arms race???
This dynamic reminds me of colleges rate of increase, but for different reasons.
Colleges justify large building projects and luxurious dining facilities in order to stay "competitive." There is this opinion that more is better and that more will attract more. So you see tuition rising at astronomical rates. If you looked at the core product - education/instruction, I suspect you'd find it hasn't risen that much relative to inflation or CPI.
Contrast that to ski areas. The infrastructure improvement have done a lot to attract newbies and keep oldies - eliminating surface lifts, magic carpets, better grooming, shorter lines, bigger cafe. Much of this is to remain competitive, in the true sense.
If we left real estate out of the picture, I suppose we could keep ski ticket prices down, but staying with rope tows, just stayed with the greasy food, don't bother trying to have 100% coverage.
There is a much bigger pool of students for college, but the proportion is similar. There are 4,000 colleges (2 and 4 year) in the US for 20M students. (5,000 students/college) There are 622 ski areas, for about 5-8M skiers & boarders depending who you ask. (11,000 skiers/boarders per area)
While the market is different, it is a lot the same. Some of it comes down to expectation, some of it is competition. Much like the cold war arms race???
riverc0il
New member
Many College and University buildings are paid for by donors and long term capital improvement plans. Much of the rise in tuition is more due to increasing health insurance costs, lack of spending controls, utility cost increases, funding cuts by the state, etc. Its basically declining revenues and increasing costs.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
Dont forget juicy teacher pensions and benefits.
I dont get "declining revenues" though, college tuition in this country is astronomically moving higher and higher. It has gotten to the point where you really have to evaluate the value proposition at a lot of these schools (i.e. they aint worth what they're charging).
I think this will be one of the big stories in America sometime over the next 20 or 25 years, "The anti-College revolt".
riverc0il
New member
Revenues come from more than just students... decreases in donations from alumni and fewer groups using facilities during the summer are two examples of non-student driven revenues.
I don't know if there will be an anti-college revolt... but I do think not going to college as a long term financial decision is being (rightly) considered by more and more potential students and their families. There are definitely other options and opportunities out there. It's all about making the right decision for each individual and having a plan to make something happen. But for many plans and jobs and careers, you do need a college education.
I don't know if there will be an anti-college revolt... but I do think not going to college as a long term financial decision is being (rightly) considered by more and more potential students and their families. There are definitely other options and opportunities out there. It's all about making the right decision for each individual and having a plan to make something happen. But for many plans and jobs and careers, you do need a college education.
Last edited:
Smellytele
Well-known member
College costs are what were driving the "Occupy" movement when it started. Now it is just a bunch of homeless people gathering together. The occupi wanted all their college loans taken care of. We as a nation have been sold that without a college education we would not get any where in life. Our nation has been saturated with too many graduates some who have no right having a degree. With this it has devalued what an education is and what it is worth. We only need so many archeologists and English graduates.
What was this thread about?
What was this thread about?
I imagine a "Liberal Arts" degree will be unheard of very soon. All about ROI.
Except for certain degrees and students, I think the smart financial move today for most kids is to spend their first two years at a Community College then transfer into a more reputable institution for their final two years.
Talisman
New member
Interesting point and enrollments in Engineering and hard sciences by US born students continue to decline. If you are willing to move there are plenty of entry level engineering jobs out there. Many would do better learning a trade like plumbing, HVAC or electrician than staggering under student loan debt.
If I had it to do over I would have gotten my BS in Nursing and work in a mountain town.
billski
Active member
There is a lot of serious discussion about working in the trades. Often they can earn as much or more than a college grad with several years experience. The earlier comment that a lot of un-qualified people are getting baccalaureate rings true.
Certainly for people like me, the only entry into fields like medical, engineering, law do indeed require collegiate study. What my wife and I are finding is that for the vast majority of folks, moving into more responsible positions are requiring a Master's degree.
Being a trained EE, my colleagues are of the consensus that they would probably not recommend engineering to others. High start salary, but dead ends quickly. The surge of off-shoring of tech jobs contribute to less and less job satisfaction.
I'm still not entirely on board with Rivercoil's assertion that costs are more wrapped in cash flow and expenses. Within our family my wife, kids and myself, we get beg-a-thon letters from 8 colleges and universities. All of them have capital improvement projects, from new performing arts centers, refurbished dorms, student center rehab, new ice rink, third swimming pool and "research" facilities, I have to question the necessity. The debt and operating burden these capital improvements impose is significant.
Many economically depressed areas of the US believe the opportunity is in two areas. Health care and Education. Highest growth, highest capital infusion into the local economy.
As I understand it, tuition covers about 50% of operating expense and only 10% of alumni contribute to the annual beg-a-thon.
Certainly for people like me, the only entry into fields like medical, engineering, law do indeed require collegiate study. What my wife and I are finding is that for the vast majority of folks, moving into more responsible positions are requiring a Master's degree.
Being a trained EE, my colleagues are of the consensus that they would probably not recommend engineering to others. High start salary, but dead ends quickly. The surge of off-shoring of tech jobs contribute to less and less job satisfaction.
I'm still not entirely on board with Rivercoil's assertion that costs are more wrapped in cash flow and expenses. Within our family my wife, kids and myself, we get beg-a-thon letters from 8 colleges and universities. All of them have capital improvement projects, from new performing arts centers, refurbished dorms, student center rehab, new ice rink, third swimming pool and "research" facilities, I have to question the necessity. The debt and operating burden these capital improvements impose is significant.
Many economically depressed areas of the US believe the opportunity is in two areas. Health care and Education. Highest growth, highest capital infusion into the local economy.
As I understand it, tuition covers about 50% of operating expense and only 10% of alumni contribute to the annual beg-a-thon.
Abubob
Well-known member
My own feeling is that modern lift serviced skiing is unsustainable. I have no fact or figures to back this up - its just a feeling I have in my gut. Skiing and ski operations were not started as a means to make a buck but for the love of being outside in the mountains in the snow. It has grown that way because someone saw all these people flocking to the hills and saw dollar signs instead of what the rest saw.
Think of all the ski areas that started as some wing-nut got an old model T engine rigged with a long rope and a bunch of pulleys. Think about how people used to flock to hike up a hill to watch a race or be in that race. Where are those people now?
While there are still lots of skiers and hikers in the mountains today the vast majority want to be pampered. Skiing is an afterthought to these hoards. :flame:
As far as a college education goes - who can afford to start adult life with a $30 to 40,000 debt? :blink:
Think of all the ski areas that started as some wing-nut got an old model T engine rigged with a long rope and a bunch of pulleys. Think about how people used to flock to hike up a hill to watch a race or be in that race. Where are those people now?
While there are still lots of skiers and hikers in the mountains today the vast majority want to be pampered. Skiing is an afterthought to these hoards. :flame:
As far as a college education goes - who can afford to start adult life with a $30 to 40,000 debt? :blink:
drjeff
Well-known member
One other factor that is driving up the cost for the college up, no if's and's or but's about it, IS the facilities on most campuses these days. If one hasn't seen a "modern" college campus these days, chances are that aside from maybe a building or two with some ivy on it, much has changed. Coffee shops/stands are plentiful throughout, many a modern dorm room will be far nicer inside than many graduates 1st apartment, the gym facilities at many campuses will rival that of most modern health clubs, and on and on and on. Sure some of this is done in an effort to distinguish one campus from another in an effort to atttract more students (and their dollars). but there is a cost associated with this, both in real dollars and then also in post college expectations. Is this a problem?? Well that depends on one's viewpoint, and also i'm guessing who's ultimately paying the bills for the lifestyle that is created by many a college these days
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
Agree with everything except the bolded.
OWS was quite literally started by an Anti-Capitalism and pro-Socialism magazine based in Canada. Literally. This is the part of the OWS story that the media underreported or doesn't bother mentioning, almost like they dont want people to know that interesting little fact.
Also? It's was far more vulgar, far more filthy, and far more wacky and extremist than what was generally ever reported on television. The media went out of its' way to not televise the people with the "Socialism in America Now!" signs, the pro-communism signs, and the Che Gueverra signs and flags. If you're a golfer, my old apartment was about a Pitching Wedge away from Zuccotti Park and I know many people that still do live there, I FELT for those poor people that live in that area. Imagine drums all week long at 3am and having to "escort" your kids through that mess. Oh, and the sad irony? TONS of people who worked in food and service jobs in that area (i.e. not exactly the "1%") lost their jobs because nobody wanted to go to FiDi for a few months, so businesses laid people off.
Have to agree. The savings would be high, and at the end of the day, the 4-year diploma is all that matters. Plus? I have to imagine that this will be an even easier route than today as demographics will soon force schools to "compete" for kids even more than today.
I went to a little school, that still manages to be D1. Student body is only about 2,400, and now they're going to be adding a football team. Are you friggin' serious? One stated reason for this is that it will make them more competitive in recruiting, which I have a hard time believing. Having a D1 football team to root for had nothing to do will my college choice.
hammer
Active member
Pursuing a college degree should not be all about ROI...but a prospective student does need to know what the ROI is of pursing their dream career. In most (if not all) cases it's not a "requirement" to go to a $50K/year (or more) school. How high-cost privates can still justify their tuition rates is beyond me.
Even with funding cuts, the number of very nice new facilities at UMASS Amherst (gym, science buildings, new honors college dorm) amazes me. I get the impression that this building boom is typical for many schools.
Similar threads
- Locked
