The subtext here is that the big seasonal employers can find anyone to work locally. And all the other businesses can't pay people enough to work on the lowest tier jobs. Pay people enough that won't hit their bottom line. So you really have the very rich and the somewhat rich fighting it out here. The solution would be temporary housing that is 20 miles away that they could bus in the workers but no one likes the way that would look.

Lower housing cost is generally beneficial to society. Making activities like skiing less exclusive and more accessible is also a benefit. One could argue that skiing doesn't directly benefit society. But by that logic there's not much benefit to art, entertainment, parks, and essentially anything other than food, housing, and healthcare.

Ski resorts are already way overcrowded, despite the insane lift prices. How is making it more accessible going to help anything? It's already at maximum capacity.

Build more mountains, duh! /s

If they really were at maximum capacity, then ticket sales would drop. But that's not happening.

No. Not if the price is at an equilibrium that optimizes for maximum capacity.

Then why are people spending so much to buy these houses? The demand is there, if the mountains really are as packed as you claim there wouldn't be so much demand to have easy access to the ski mountain.

This is my pet peeve. There is so much cheap land elsewhere but everyone HAS to live in Beverly Hills, 5th Ave, etc... etc...

Lots of places are just attractive because wealthy people live there and keep them nice. You densify it and it'll go to the drain quicker than anything.