Originally Posted by wbroun
Sorry, but this is classic voodoo economics, and incredibly simplistic. You can't just strip lift tickets out of an entire economic context!
It is not "voodoo economics," though it is of course simplified -- as is the case whenever you want to summarize everything that's happening in the world in a single number or set of statistics.
I didn't bring up the median-income element ... it was in the original post I responded to. The bare CPI-adjustment is probably more meaningful. The median-income adjustment is nominal in any event.
Moreover, if the point (I guess that's my point) is that where skiing stands in the economic world now isn't significantly different from where it stood in the late '60s, I think that the anecdotal "context" your article supplies supports the point, rather than detracting from it. Factory workers weren't skiing in 1968 either. As the prices -- adjusted for inflation only, not taking income into account -- suggest, casual recreational skiers in 1968 were, as now, mostly managerial-professional-technical types. (Of course then, as now, there are the dedicated hard-core who, in some cases, don't do much other
than ski). If there's a widening income gap in the US, the effect is to make skiing cheaper for its core customers, relative to their income, than it used to be. While the median household income hasn't increased a lot, the median household income of the top fifth (which included most skiers in 1968 and now) increased pretty dramatically, from about $84 thousand in 1968 to $147 thousand in 2003 (adjusted for inflation).
But it's simpler and more to the point just to note that the price of skiing, relative to food, and clothes, and other stuff, isn't a lot different than it was forty years ago. If anybody doubted that in the first place.