Considering the original proposal, that rent-seeking by large entities ("major resorts") drives a huge surtax on the labor of instructors and the cost to consumers, there is little argument. Whether the free-market ought to intervene & if so, how; is being debated for 8 pages & counting by people abler than i.
On the question of whether ski instructors below any given level should be able to afford to make a somewhat comfortable career at the profession, there are a lot of counter examples in a mostly free-market society. Ignoring possibly specious examples such as truly talented horseshoe tossing experts & moving to lower levels of less popular musical instrument teachers, artists, etc; there are many highly professional examples where the apprentice at various points in history is assumed to toil under-compensated for years, until attaining a high level of mastery or at least acreditation. Often a substantial initial investment (mid-6 figures) in education is required. Doctors of all sorts including PhD candidates who do most of the world's basic research. There's a pilot shortage now and kids out of training mills can get on a path that builds time and income rapidly. But during most of my life, pilots who did not fly as a military career sometimes spent decades teaching & working low level, low compensated jobs & accumulating debt and marital problems before (maybe) attaining the left seat in an airliner or one of the few better corporate gigs.
There are an awful lot of appealing activities that the entry level is unrestricted, and people initially flock to them (or return to them after other more remunerative careers) because of passion. Income remains low for most lower echelons. That's not necessarily a fault of the system. It is a market driven factor that often varies over historical periods, though.
smt
