Pat; That may be part of it but I think there is more. The suggestion appears to be that private clubs are facing hard times. This is undoubtedly true because it is true for all golf. We are overbuilt so there are a certain number of clubs that are struggling.
The suggestion is that by making its fee schedule public, a club will have a better chance to compete. Additionally, there appears to be a fear that the reason a club will not go "public" is because it makes special deals for favored applicants. I suspect that if an individual needs to see the fees in public and is unwilling to make the effort to find out through a personal call, he is unlikely to become a member. Its not much of an effort for one who is truly interested in making a significant financial and personal commitment. As to the special deals, if the club is member owned and operated, that practice would be very difficult to maintain.
What I think is missing from a lot of these comments is the lack of feeling for that which makes a club a "club". The camaraderie and friendships that arise at a club, the fun that is had playing in competitions with fellow members over time and the satisfaction gained working on shared projects are the glue that binds clubs. Thus the emphasis on dollars and cents and the failure to consider the intangible aspects shows a lack of understanding of the real appeal of a club. Jackie Burke had a nice section on this aspect in his book.
Candidly, a lot of this discussion strikes me as rationalizations. Historically, other than people with old money, people joined clubs in their late 30's to early 50's after they had their feet on the ground in their careers and had a sense of where they stood economically and building their families. That hasn't changed and we will find out how many of those entering into these years are interested in club life. The economy will play a role. But a core of people will enjoy our game and others will want club life. Perhaps there will be a movement toward other forms of clubs. Of course many muni's have their own form by establishing Men's and Women's Associations which hold events on the local course. Before I was ready to join my club, that is how I played my golf.
Finally, the amount of disinformation passed around to try and make a point is pretty bad. For example, Ben, if you want to tell me that restaurants in Chicago gave out menus without prices and sold food 30 to 40 years ago, you will have to name the restaurants and not rely on "parents of a friend". Perhaps some establishments retained a sexist practice of keeping prices from the fairer sex, but those were mostly clubs. How do I know? 39 years ago I returned To Chicago from Cambridge after finishing law school and I didn't cook much so I spent a lot of time in restaurants on my own and chasing girls. 30 years ago I still lived in the metropolitan area and had started my family and I continue to live here. I can't remember a single instance where I didn't see the prices.
Moreover, I am active in club administration for the entire Chicago District and the characterization of the admission process by the critics in this thread is not reflective of the situation in Chicago except that most clubs don't post their fee schedule. you still have to ask. For most member owned clubs, you still have to be sponsored and interviewed. that's because the members want to know who they are admitting; its part of keeping the club friendly. But if the economics get tough enough, some will change. Regardless, I believe a significant number of clubs and courses will fold. Overbuilding in a bubble results in problems. The sad part for architecture buffs is that we can't choose the courses that will fail.