I don't buy it as a whole. That article was EXTREMELY biased and skewed. Sure the rich get rich while the poor get poorer in some places, but in some anomalies like Texas, we're doing juuuuust fine, and so is our middle class (like me). Sure, last year was rough even for me, but I've bounced back, and am planning on skiing my ass of this season. You can all rip on us "Jong" Texans (especially at TGR...sheesh), but WE'RE gonna be the ones to keep supporting the industry during these tough economic times. It seems like Californians have a lot of hate for us, but we hate California just the same for making retarded economic decisions as a whole (i.e. real estate), then trying to drag down the rest of the nation with them. There are tons of California immigrants in Texas now, trying to take advantage of our better economy. I'm not trying to hate on any one here, but it is what it is.
As long as there are still state economies like Texas enjoys, I don't believe the ski industry will be taking as big a hit as some would suspect. Skiing in the NE is a different story, however. It's not like many of us make that our destination. Everyone I know exclusively goes to the Rockies/PNW.
Seemed like that article had a lot of hate for conservative economic principles. At the end of it, it said we need more government involvement, not less. Let's take a look at the states that have taken that approach (i.e. California, Michigan, NY, etc.), and then compare them to the states with less government involvement and lower taxes (i.e. Texas, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Oklahoma, etc). I'm not saying it's a Republican versus Democrat thing, but just observing which states are doing the best and which ones are doing the worst, I don't know how in the world the author of the article can believe we need MORE government involvement. The last couple years of taking that approach obviously hasn't worked on a national level, and many states are proof of how poorly that works on a more local level.