The "Sugarbush Thread"

[cdskier]

I think that this is a key thing that some, especially some of the younger workers, don't seem to fully get, that while some industries can certainly run without issues in a WFH modality, there are others, where there is a definte fall off and a times lesser client expetience/services situation, even if the employee really like the WFH situation, that needs to have an in person work experience, and that's where the boss will step in and probably "offend" a few of their younger employees along they way as they are brought back into the office for the overall health of the company and it's customers/clients

I do agree this doesn't work in all industries. And even in some business it may only work for some positions.

I don't agree that it is simply a younger vs older generation thing though. Where I work is rather skewed towards an older workforce within many of the office-based positions (By this I mean people in their 40s, 50s, 60s). Quite a few of them seemed to quickly embrace being fully WFH more-so than some of our younger staff. It seems a decent number of the "older" people already had 2nd homes (down the shore, on the Cape, in the mountains, etc) and seized the opportunity to "move" to those locations. Younger people are a lot less likely to have already had those 2nd homes they could simply go to.

We also have quite a few offices globally. And many teams have people in multiple offices and have global reporting structures. Even myself, I'm technically based in our NJ office, but my manager is based in Cambridge, MA. The people I work with on many of my projects are spread out in offices in MA, NJ, CA, PA, France, India, Germany. So for this scenario, what's the difference between being in an office vs being at home when I'm not going to physically see any people I work with in the office anyway?

 

[Tin Woodsman]

Is it really that hard to understand? Well off people buy the property in the “vacation” towns and drive property values up, driving the worker bees out. The well off are working remotely and don’t need service jobs. Yes they want to be part of the community by shopping and eating there but not working. Oh they may volunteer but that doesn’t help when service workers are needed.

This. So much this. Any other explanation, especially since pandemic-related unemployment payments have been eliminated for the vast majority of workers, is ideology masquerading as curiosity.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

We can debate all we want about what should or shouldn't be part of a social welfare system, and there will be passionate people on both sides of that debate for sure, but the reality is with how those programs have expanded over the last 50+ years and what they now cover and what they cost a year, we really should be in a situation where poverty and homelessness in this country should be in a better situation than it is now.

Poverty, which those programs were designed to address, is most certainly down in the last 50 years by any metric. Homelessness was not historically a huge concern or focus of social welfare programs. The destruction of the public safety net for the mentally disabled in the 70s really kicked that process into gear. Tt's more recently been catalyzed by a structural housing shortage as supply fails to keep up with demand in places people want to live (coasts, mountains). The final kicker has been the growth of Airbnb/VRBO in that they take a huge % of the long-term rental housing stock out of the market. Why deal with the hassle of a winter-long tenant who may/may not be reliable vs. skimming the cream of tourists via Airbnb and laying off much of the risk to the platform.

While I'm not suggesting we go the European route I believe in free markets), but clearly there is a relationship between poverty/homelessness and the level of social spending. There is of course a downside of slower growth and higher unemployment, so I'm not suggesting that's nirvana. But to suggest that increases in social welfare spending are ineffective in general, or have been specifically in the US, is economically uninformed.

 

[1dog]

Poverty, which those programs were designed to address, is most certainly down in the last 50 years by any metric. Homelessness was not historically a huge concern or focus of social welfare programs. The destruction of the public safety net for the mentally disabled in the 70s really kicked that process into gear. Tt's more recently been catalyzed by a structural housing shortage as supply fails to keep up with demand in places people want to live (coasts, mountains). The final kicker has been the growth of Airbnb/VRBO in that they take a huge % of the long-term rental housing stock out of the market. Why deal with the hassle of a winter-long tenant who may/may not be reliable vs. skimming the cream of tourists via Airbnb and laying off much of the risk to the platform.

While I'm not suggesting we go the European route I believe in free markets), but clearly there is a relationship between poverty/homelessness and the level of social spending. There is of course a downside of slower growth and higher unemployment, so I'm not suggesting that's nirvana. But to suggest that increases in social welfare spending are ineffective in general, or have been specifically in the US, is economically uninformed.

Agree with many of these points, but the rate of poverty is the same as (defined by the feds) 13% after $22 trillion expended since The Great Society Act in '65.
Overview here: https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/the-war-poverty-after-50-years
My oldest lives in Bay Area - in a few short years homelessness as decimated the city and beyond. That '70's legislation did close the institutions and asked the locals ( counties, cities, towns, and most of all families, to deal with the issue- many failed of course. They threw them some cash. A recent CA study found the average spent on the problem in the state was $80K per person. Its a pretty large business. The administration of the programs eat up enormous amounts of the funding. Similar to most government programs.

Scroll down on this to see Jefferson, and Franklins take on 'vagabonds' ( not addressing mental illness of course).

Poverty and Welfare in the American Founding

Did Americans before the 20th century lack compassion for the poor? Did they treat the poor with indifference or even cruelty? That is the impression given by most high school and college textbooks. Few students ever learn that government-funded welfare, not to mention generous private charity...

www.heritage.org

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
― C. S. Lewis

 

[Powder Whore]

Actually, after the Big Pass there was the Huge Pass which included Jay, MRG and the Bush. It was a college deal yet again.

unicorn pass

 

[KustyTheKlown]

Expound on please

Right it’s all those pesky govt programs preventing remote knowledge workers who moved to ski towns from putting on their line cook apron or snowmakers coat.

 

[KustyTheKlown]

Lived in ski towns for years. I have many friends that still do, a lot in the restaurant business as that's where I worked.

Not a single employer I know (in Stowe at least) says the reason they are struggling to find staff is because of lazy people taking advantage of social safety nets. Not one.

It's about the cost of available housing for workers and available, consistent year round income. You used to be able to find a reasonable apartment in Stowe and be able to make enough during peak seasons to carry you through April, May and November when tourism is completely dead. That doesn't exist anymore. In comparison to 25 years ago, Morrisville has higher rents than what I paid in Stowe. So, all of the young people just leave for the cities. Having to drive 30 minutes to work or entertainment defeats the purpose of being a ski bum.

As for lack of youth workers? Again, it's because of transplants pricing out locals. 25 years ago you had lower income families in Stowe who had lived there generations. They all had kids working the local pizza shops and what not.

Almost all of those people have been replaced by wealthy transplants. You think mom and dad are going to make junior get a job to pay for gas money for the Range Rover they drive to school? Lol. No.

He just wanted to use a lot of words to make a not thinly veiled racist post about welfare recipients

 

[SteezyRob]

Any word on when they'll start snowmaking or what they'll be planning on opening?

 

[jimmywilson69]

Sugarbush is usually a 11/1 snowmaking start.

 

[ducky]

Brian Mohr already has 1 day in skiing the frosty grass.

 

[teleo]

The Valley Reporter - Sugarbush begins permitting process for lift replacement and trail realignment

Sugarbush has begun the permitting process to replace the Heaven’s Gate triple chair with a fixed grip quad chairlift.

www.valleyreporter.com

Not much new here. But the following is amusing:

“Current thinking is that the new lift will remain roughly in the same footprint as the existing lift,” he said, refuting social media posts about the Heaven’s Gate base being moved lower down on the mountain.

 

[SteezyRob]

So it's my understanding that they're cutting a completely new, lower reverse traverse?
If this is the case how are they getting around the fact that people will have to ski Stein's to get onto it? That's too bad because I remember in prior season's when Bravo was closed late-season, you could still take Reverse Traverse and ski Murphy's/Birdland to LoG but now there won't be as much skiing.
Also I wonder if this means they will shorten Egan's and Stein's Woods, or if in the case of Egan's they'll expand up through Valerie's. I guess it won't matter much, everyone sees it skiing on VH Traverse.

 

[Hawk]

So it's my understanding that they're cutting a completely new, lower reverse traverse?
If this is the case how are they getting around the fact that people will have to ski Stein's to get onto it? That's too bad because I remember in prior season's when Bravo was closed late-season, you could still take Reverse Traverse and ski Murphy's/Birdland to LoG but now there won't be as much skiing.
Also I wonder if this means they will shorten Egan's and Stein's Woods, or if in the case of Egan's they'll expand up through Valerie's. I guess it won't matter much, everyone sees it skiing on VH Traverse.

I am not sure what you are saying here. But this is what they are doing with reverse traverse. As you come off VH lift and turn right, it will be exactly the same. you ski across the top of Steins like you always did and go until the trail went slightly up hill. From about there they were gong to regrade the trail to slightly more dowm hill. The path across Murphys, Jester and OG would be slightly different and then it would end up crossing Domino at the same place with no changes so you can ski right to the existing HG base. Egans woods would be affected at the top 50 or so yards. At least that is what I was told.

 

[Newpylong]

If you peruse the ACT 250 filings it goes into great detail on the alignment. The above summary is correct. Top section is realigned to be downhill and provide for an at grade crossing directly into the lower section of RT.

 

[slatham]

Any work start on Reverse Traverse yet?

 

[djd66]

Any work start on Reverse Traverse yet?

act 250 is still pending, so my guess would be no

 

[SteezyRob]

I am not sure what you are saying here. But this is what they are doing with reverse traverse. As you come off VH lift and turn right, it will be exactly the same. you ski across the top of Steins like you always did and go until the trail went slightly up hill. From about there they were gong to regrade the trail to slightly more dowm hill. The path across Murphys, Jester and OG would be slightly different and then it would end up crossing Domino at the same place with no changes so you can ski right to the existing HG base. Egans woods would be affected at the top 50 or so yards. At least that is what I was told.

Yeah sorry about my post being messy... sounds like the work they're doing on RT is not going to be as drastic as I had thought.

 

[SkiTheEast]

Yeah sorry about my post being messy... sounds like the work they're doing on RT is not going to be as drastic as I had thought.

Link to all the docs. There is a nice map in one of the attachments that illustrates it well for those that prefer visuals like me.

Forest Service

Forest Service

www.fs.usda.gov

 

[SteezyRob]

Link to all the docs. There is a nice map in one of the attachments that illustrates it well for those that prefer visuals like me.

Forest Service

Forest Service

www.fs.usda.gov

OK yeah, the new realignment makes much more sense than the old one, thanks!

 

[cdskier]

The Valley Reporter - Sugarbush begins permitting process for lift replacement and trail realignment

Sugarbush has begun the permitting process to replace the Heaven’s Gate triple chair with a fixed grip quad chairlift.

www.valleyreporter.com

Not much new here. But the following is amusing:

“Current thinking is that the new lift will remain roughly in the same footprint as the existing lift,” he said, refuting social media posts about the Heaven’s Gate base being moved lower down on the mountain.

LOL. I'm completely shocked that a certain someone on social media was wrong on this topic...