Casinoification of America

[MtSmalls]

There was a report in the local (Denver) paper today about a proposal for a new casino just outside the metro area. This is probably at least 18 months if not 2 years away (there are various issues in land grants to the proper Indian tribe, building etc).

As much of an avid card player as I am, I am beginning to wonder about the 'casinoification' of America and the potential economic issues (as opposed to the overblown social issues).

Casinos are clearly the easy answer for many cities/municipalities to drive new revenue. The Indian tribes or casino owners promise huge percentages to the state (usually for school districts or other easy token gestures), in exchange for smoothing the road to opening the casino. But this takes a piece of the pie for other economic projects that could have a much longer, and much more positive impact on the local economy.

I believe the story this morning quoted 2500 jobs (roughly), but those won't be entirely new jobs, as this establishment will cannibalize a couple of the smaller casinos in the state, and will likely result in less than half of that number of NEW jobs. This results in effectively no change in the state unemployment levels (2500 jobs equals .1% of the metro area), and certainly these will be mostly minimum wage or slightly higher jobs anyway (McJobs).

The rapid expansion of casinos in the country over the last 10 years is amazing, and I do like having a live poker game now and then, but haven't we maxed out to some degree? Or am I just ranting to the wrong crowd?

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
The rapid expansion of casinos in the country over the last 10 years is amazing, and I do like having a live poker game now and then, but haven't we maxed out to some degree? Or am I just ranting to the wrong crowd?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd prefer to let the free market determine when we max out on casino expansion rather than the goverment or some other body deciding we've had enough.

[Rick Nebiolo]

I’m a conservative but I don’t believe the free market is the solution for everything. So I disagree with Dynasty here.

The nation would be far better off if casino style gambling stayed restricted to relatively inaccessible places such as Las Vegas and Atlantic City. A litle bit of hard to get to and hard to obtain vice is OK I suppose. But casinos within a twenty minute drive to most of the population are another story.

Connecticut is lucky. Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun are stuck in the far southeast corner of the state. Most of their customers come from outside the state (as do most of Las Vegas and Atlantic City customers). That means Connecticut gets most of the benefits (e.g., taxes, employment to out of work Electric Boat types) but is only stuck with a portion of the social ills associated with gambling.

Once most inner cities have their own casinos we will realize what a mistake we have made as a society.

Anyway, Happy New Year to All!

Rick

[andyfox]

The free market never determines casino expansion or lack thereof. Legislatures, backroom deals, political expediency, and big money make that determination.

[cero_z]

[cero_z]

Hi Rick,
[ QUOTE ]
A litle bit of hard to get to and hard to obtain vice is OK I suppose. But casinos within a twenty minute drive to most of the population are another story.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once most inner cities have their own casinos we will realize what a mistake we have made as a society.


[/ QUOTE ]
These 2 statements demonstrate a contempt for people and their right to govern their own lives that is unfounded, IMO. As for the 1st statement, it seems to offer denial as public policy. If the point is that casinos are just too tempting to be made readily available to all, then shouldn't we only build them atop the tallest mountain peaks, or deep under the sea? This makes no sense to me.
Despite the above, I actually agree with you that there are too many casinos throughout the country. IMO, they are harmful social agents that siphon off a community's resources and provide little in return. Therefor, I would vote against a casino in my local area. But, these problems are just as real in Vegas as in most other locales with state-sanctioned gambling, so putting casinos in "hard to get to" places is no solution.
I believe the problems are government corruption, as andyfox mentioned, and a lack of true disclosure to the general public about precisely how a casino works, and how it affects its community. IMO, the first problem is the main contributor to the second. Please see my home state of Wisconsin for countless examples.
Reading over my post, I see that it's harsh. I mean no offense to you, personally, Rick; I just strongly disagree with your viewpoint on this matter.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

You're only partially correct. Had the marketplace said "No" to casinos, no amount of backroom dealings would have greased such an expansion.

[dandy_don]

Originally from an urban environment (Memphis), I understand the concern of MtSmalls knowing that the poorest of the poor are usually the ones most in attendance at these facilities; you hear the stories of embezzlement, people loosing their mortgage or grocery money gambling, however, people have to be responsible for their own actions.

In Memphis, if it wasn't the casinos in Tunica, there was already the dog tracks in West Memphis, horse tracks in Hot Springs (AR), lotto’s, bingo parlors, etc. that are causing this to happen as well. The casinos are just doing a better job of captivating the individuals.

[dandy_don]

I wish I had read the entire thread before posting because I'd like to agree with some of the later statements mentioned:

Where I currently live, there are no poker rooms or table games within several hours of me (at least 4 hours away although I only know of Tunica which is 6 hours away). There are Indian casinos in Oklahoma but my understanding is that they only have slots, which I would never play. I would love to have a poker room nearby.

The reason the casinos are in Tunica (about 30 minutes South of Memphis) and not in DeSoto County (my original home area) is because we kept voting it down each time it came up for a vote. Had it passed, the casinos would have been literally on the city limits of Memphis and not 30 minutes away.

[HDPM]

Then perhaps a government should stop doing things it has no business doing. Maybe a state gov should get rid of planning and zoning laws and laws prohibiting gambling. What people do w/ their money that doesn't hurt another person is not the government's concern. And I don't care about the boo hoo hoo stuff that the poorest people lose their money and their kids suffer etc.... Their kids suffer anyway and then the parents make the problem worse by sending them to public schools, taking them to church, and feeding them poison. And parents waste money all the time on tvs and toys and cars they can't afford purchased on 72 mo. 9% financing or whatever. But nobody cries over that. just the potential effect of gambling on the family budget. WGAS? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[RydenStoompala]

I disagree entirely with the argument that backroom dealing and government intentions somehow dictate casino market pentration. The notion is preposterous. Market demand is either there or it isn't and with the margins in many locals very slim due to the government rake, casinos can, and have, gone out of business before the paint was dry. This does not mean there isn't rampant corruption and massive influence peddling surrounding most casinos, because there is. I mean it's a waste of time bribing the local council and then opening a gaming operation that nobody wants to attend. More casinos will go out of business because the only "customers" they get are from the legion of local losers who cannot get enough chain smoking in front of the slot machines. If that's your target clientelle then you deserve the misery heading your way.

Gaming (gambling) is a losing proposition for every participant who is not an owner(does NOT include Poker). That is a mathamatical fact. But having told someone they will be hit by a car if they try to cross the road, piling a big pile of cash on the other side, then watching them get run over is a right under the free market system. If anyone doesn't like it they should elect Rush Limbaugh or some other drug-addled nutbar who believes he has all the answers to human behavior. America is legally full of opportunities and you should fight to keep it that way.

[Rick Nebiolo]

Happy New Year cero_z!,

You wrote quoting me:

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Rick,
[ QUOTE ]
A little bit of hard to get to and hard to obtain vice is OK I suppose. But casinos within a twenty-minute drive to most of the population are another story.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once most inner cities have their own casinos we will realize what a mistake we have made as a society.


[/ QUOTE ]
These 2 statements demonstrate a contempt for people and their right to govern their own lives that is unfounded, IMO. As for the 1st statement, it seems to offer denial as public policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regarding the first statement for the public good we “deny” streetwalkers the right to openly sell sex on the streets of most neighborhoods. Where they are able to roam is typically in areas where other more serious crime is pervasive (siphoning off police attention) or in remote areas where there are no residents to offend or tempt. Because of this very reasonable public policy most of us don’t pass a phalanx of hookers on the way to the grocery store; but if we wanted one escort services are available anywhere and one could find a streetwalker if they went out of their way (regarding “going out of ones way” I’m not talking Las Vegas of course).

We used to “deny” convenience stores the right to openly sell pornography. Now the average young kid gets a full look at more than he needs to see with innocent eyes every time he goes out for milk (I’m talking Southern California of course – hopefully more enlightened states hold on to the old restrictions).

[ QUOTE ]
If the point is that casinos are just too tempting to be made readily available to all, then shouldn't we only build them atop the tallest mountain peaks, or deep under the sea? This makes no sense to me.
Despite the above, I actually agree with you that there are too many casinos throughout the country. IMO, they are harmful social agents that siphon off a community's resources and provide little in return. Therefor, I would vote against a casino in my local area. But, these problems are just as real in Vegas as in most other locales with state-sanctioned gambling, so putting casinos in "hard to get to" places is no solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you refer to building casinos “atop the tallest mountain peaks, or deep under the sea” you are using hyperbole and making a straw man out of my argument. Las Vegas is essentially an island in the desert. Most of us have to drive several hours or fly in to get there. When casino gambling became legal Las Vegas was a small dusty town (well I suppose it is still dusty if you make it outdoors /images/graemlins/grin.gif ). Anyone who moved there since should have known it would be a mistake if he or she had a gambling problem. On the positive side Las Vegas provided an isolated venue to “sin a little” and “blow off some steam” for the general population willing to make the effort to get there. As social policy I believe people should be able to go out of their way to “sin a little” safely. That's why I prefer that Las Vegas style gambling stays in Nevada.

Atlantic City isn’t as good an example but it still is not easily accessed from the Northeast, Southwest and Southeast. As you can see by looking at this (http://tinyurl.com/2tya6 ) map most of Atlantic City’s customers have to drive (or bus) two or three hours. Atlantic City had become a dump before gambling became legal. It is still a dump if you get off the boardwalk.

Now the Indian tribes are building giant casinos within a one or two hour drive of Los Angeles and other California metro areas. Soon they may get the right to build them in the city. This will lead to more and more slot machine style gambling by vast numbers of people who should be spending their time doing something more uplifting.

My parents now live within three miles of a thousand slot machines. What used to be a poorly attended Jai Lai fronton is now mostly a slot machine barn/casino (http://www.newportgrand.com ). Newport is within an hour’s drive of Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun. Mom and Dad gamble small relative to their income and hopefully not too often but many of their neighbors have gambling problems that now find an easy outlet where they didn’t have one before. So Newport, Rhode Island would be better off without that “entertainment” option IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the problems are government corruption, as andyfox mentioned, and a lack of true disclosure to the general public about precisely how a casino works, and how it affects its community. IMO, the first problem is the main contributor to the second. Please see my home state of Wisconsin for countless examples.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with Andy and the above. Regarding how casinos affect the community my understanding is that in Minnesota and Wisconsin the explosion of Indian casinos has taken away from spending on other entertainment venues. There isn’t a net gain of wealth; rather a redistribution from the general population to those specific tribes that have casinos and their workers.

[ QUOTE ]
Reading over my post, I see that it's harsh. I mean no offense to you, personally, Rick; I just strongly disagree with your viewpoint on this matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn’t harsh. Read this clarification and feel free to reply equally harshly /images/graemlins/smirk.gif.

Regards,

Rick

[Jim Easton]

The legislatures will only limit expansion. They will not create expansion, that takes someone willing to build a casino - which the free market determines. I won't dispute the corruption claims, there is no doubt in my mind it is significant. However, if the market doesn't demand another casino, there will be no big money to make a deal to build one.

[Rick Nebiolo]

Happy New Year dandy_don!

Generally enthusiasts attend and gamble at dog tracks, horse tracks, and bingo parlors. These forms of gambling weren’t that popular and at least provide for some form of social interaction and consequently don’t do too much social damage. The new casinos are mostly slot machine barns. Other than the lottery, this is the most mind numbing and addicting form of gambling for the general public. Comparing a racetrack or bingo parlor to these places is almost like comparing having a beer to doing crack cocaine.

Regards,

Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

Happy New Year High Desert Poker MAn!,

My grandparents were immigrants and essentially working poor for most of their lives. Yet they and most of their neighbors were industrious and saved money. Now we have state sponsored lotteries and increasingly easy access to casino style gambling. Today few of the working poor save and my understanding in that spending on lotteries is a big reason why they don’t. Soon the people who waste money on the lottery will also be able to waste money on slot machines. Had these conditions existed when my grandparents and their peers were young I’m not sure they would have resisted it (well maybe my grandparents would have, they were very thrifty and I say that in the best sense /images/graemlins/grin.gif).

When the working poor don’t evolve into the middle class, it hurts all of us.

Regards,

Rick

[HDPM]

My grandparents were immigrants too, but like many other immigrants they valued work and education and stuff. The problem is that there are unlimited ways that people can waste their money. And the poor or lower middle class waste it. A lot of middle class people do too. I know I have wasted a lot myself. But I have not wasted it gambling. Sums lost gambling (slots, table games, etc...)have been pretty trivial compared to the other stupid stuff I buy. Anyway, the point is that people make bad choices w/ their money all the time and it does hurt other people. It hurts their families most and spreads out from there. But there is always something foolish for them to do. So to take away personal liberty to enforce some vague notion of societal good is wrong IMO. People will always find a way to make bad decisions.

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif well; there is money in gambling, but just wait till prostitution is leagized and taxxed...lol

now there is a pile of cash...lol..gl /images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif

[Rick Nebiolo]

Happy New Year Jim!,

Any slot machine barn/casino built near or in an urban area (that doesn’t have slot machines now) with ample parking or access will make a fortune for the owners. So there are plenty of people willing to build or convert an existing facility into a casino.

Elected and ostensibly accountable state legislatures may not be able to stop casino expansion. The Indian’s have rights granted by the federal government that others don’t and they are working there way into cities. Eventually lawsuits brought before judges may determine whether or not other business interests can open casinos too.

Regards,

Rick

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
Yet they and most of their neighbors were industrious and saved money.

[/ QUOTE ]

They also didn't have all of the government safety nets to support them.

[ QUOTE ]
Today few of the working poor save and my understanding in that spending on lotteries is a big reason why they don’t.

[/ QUOTE ]

The U.S.'s savings rate dropped dramatically long before there were lotteries. Reliance on government programs such as Social Security and a tax code that discourages savings are factors in that drop.

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
So there are plenty of people willing to build or convert an existing facility into a casino.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the free market at work.

[Redhotman]

The problem with casinos, is that the majority of games they offer are simply money vacuums. It isnt fair to the economy of a city to ahve to suffer so the elite can get richer.

maybe they should be forced to offer fair games where the house has no edge, and allow them to make their profits off of hotelrooms and food and that sort.

Poker rooms are fine, because they are providing a service, however games like craps and roulette which are unbeatable should be regulated.

Maybe they should be required to put up a ten foot sign that says:

"IT IS MATHMATICALLY IMPOSIBLE TO WIN MONEY PLAYING THIS GAME"

[Rick Nebiolo]

Jim,

I agree to an extent. My point is that lotteries and the possiblility of widespread local casino gambling will make things even worse.

~ Rick

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
It isnt fair to the economy of a city to ahve to suffer so the elite can get richer

[/ QUOTE ]

Most gaming entities are not owned by the "elite", but are publicly held corporations.

[ QUOTE ]
maybe they should be forced to offer fair games where the house has no edge, and allow them to make their profits off of hotelrooms and food and that sort.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not just close them down? This would have the same effect.

[ QUOTE ]
games like craps and roulette which are unbeatable should be regulated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gaming is regulated.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe they should be required to put up a ten foot sign that says:

"IT IS MATHMATICALLY IMPOSIBLE TO WIN MONEY PLAYING THIS GAME"

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe most people already know this.

[dandy_don]

[ QUOTE ]
Generally enthusiasts attend and gamble at dog tracks, horse tracks, and bingo parlors. These forms of gambling weren’t that popular and at least provide for some form of social interaction and consequently don’t do too much social damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Enthusiasts? I saw more crack heads at the dog tracks than I did enthusiasts. Several of my family members (mom, aunts, cousins) used to frequent the bingo parlors, however since the casinos opened I don't know if any have ever been again (matter of fact, I don't know if there is one still open since the casinos opened several years ago). Just like the bingo parlors, the dog track has fallen on hard times in the past few years because the very individuals they relied on to attend the track are the same people that are now keeping the Tunica casinos jumping.

Now granted, most horse tracks are a little different class of people, although I recently went to one over in Oklahoma that scared me to death.

[dandy_don]

[ QUOTE ]
maybe they should be forced to offer fair games where the house has no edge, and allow them to make their profits off of hotelrooms and food and that sort.


[/ QUOTE ]

What is everyone's fasination of making the government "force" free enterprises to do such things? In a free society (I heard once that America used to be that way) the government should be involved as little as absolutely possible and grown, "responsible" adults are "FREE" (apparently a word that has lost it's meaning in the past few decades) to make their own decisions for themselves, whether they be responsible decisions or not.

What game would be enjoyable without the Psychological effects of gambling? It's the adrenaline rush to win or lose money that gets people coming back to the casinos. In your style of casino, no one would be "entertained" and it would fail miserably.

[Rick Nebiolo]

I've never been at a dog track but I'll take your word for it. A lot of bingo used to be very low stakes church bingo and there the social interaction probably offset what little social and economic damage they caused.

[ QUOTE ]
Just like the bingo parlors, the dog track has fallen on hard times in the past few years because the very individuals they relied on to attend the track are the same people that are now keeping the Tunica casinos jumping.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm aware the tracks have fallen on hard times but the attendence at the new casinos far exceeds what used to go to the tracks (perhaps except for Seabiscuit's races) and bingo parlors. That means readily available casinos mean more people will gamble more often. That's not good for the nation.

[ QUOTE ]
Now granted, most horse tracks are a little different class of people, although I recently went to one over in Oklahoma that scared me to death.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even Santa Anita and Hollywood Park scare me a bit. But I hate to be around people that litter /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

Regards,

Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
What is everyone's fasination of making the government "force" free enterprises to do such things? In a free society (I heard once that America used to be that way) the government should be involved as little as absolutely possible and grown, "responsible" adults are "FREE" (apparently a word that has lost it's meaning in the past few decades) to make their own decisions for themselves, whether they be responsible decisions or not.

[/ QUOTE ].

For the record on many if not most other issues I’m firmly In favor of allowing responsible adults and businesses to do what they want. For example, I’m a non-smoking Californian but I find it appalling that California has a law where even the neighborhood tavern or a small restaurant can’t chose to be a smoking establishment. OTOH, restricting smoking in other public areas (e.g., airports, public buildings) isn’t so bad.

I don’t think government should do much to stop underground gambling. But state sponsored lotteries mean government is involved in promoting vice. That is a line I believe should never have been crossed. Let the mob have the numbers racket. At least they returned a higher amount /images/graemlins/grin.gif

~ Rick

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Tho perhaps noble, you must realize your ideas on this subject are extremely impractical in the real world.

al

[andyfox]

There's obviously a market for gambling. That market is not what determines where and how many casinos are built: it is money that talks. Foxwoods, for example, is the biggest casino in the world. While there was obviously a market for the product it supplies, its existence has more to do with the forces I mentioned than the market. There are three terrific books out that detail the shennanigans: the most recent is Brett D. Fromson's Hitting The Jackpot. The other two are Kim Issaac Eisler's Revenge of the Pequots and Jeff Benedict's [i]Without Reservation.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
"IT IS MATHMATICALLY IMPOSIBLE TO WIN MONEY PLAYING THIS GAME"

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a meaningless statement in the sense that it would have little to no effect on the mass of people that gamble. There are numerous warnings on other "things" including cigarettes and liquor for example. And a plethora of warnings are now tacked onto almost any kind of device purchased by the public, from hand drills to tinker toys. It is unnecessary drivel that most do not read, would not understand, do not care, or just ignore out of ignorance or spite.

-Zeno

[adios]

"The problem with casinos, is that the majority of games they offer are simply money vacuums. It isnt fair to the economy of a city to ahve to suffer so the elite can get richer."

This thinking has more or less come up on two other forums on this site and it's just plain wrong. In any economic transaction among those acting in their own rational self interest (which is what free enterprise is all about really) both parties in the transaction benefit. The casino player benefits by the entertainment, excitement and fun of gambling and the casino benefits by earning a profit in providing the fun and entertainment. It's that simple really. As I've stated before, don't tell the people of Nevada that gambling is an economic cancer.

[adios]

Sorry Rick you're totally wrong IMO and futhermore the poor would have a much better shot playing craps or 21 than playing the lottery. You won't see casinos deriving much of their revenue from the poor anytime soon IMO.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree to an extent. My point is that lotteries and the possiblility of widespread local casino gambling will make things even worse.


[/ QUOTE ]

Worse? Worse than what? How much necessary state control and regulation is needed, in your opinion, to curb people's "vices"? Or put it another way - How much individual freedom should be [needs to be] curtailed to stop some peoples urges at self-destructive behaviors?

You cannot stop the outlet of moronic behavior from a species that throughout recorded history has excelled in brutality, ignorance, imbecility, and mass insanity.

I could go on and on and expound on this but I will simply end it all succinctly with a quote from my favorite author:

“The human race consists of the dangerously insane and such as are not” – Mark Twain

The dangerously insane should be shot – the rest can lounge around in casinos were they can do little damage except to themselves and their closest relations.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

Are you implying that chicanery was a foot?

I say; quite shocking, that.


Bertie Wooster.

[Zele]

With you there, man. Unbelievable that they go after anyone when the lottery offers 50% payback if you're lucky. And it's not harmless. Most middle-class lottery players buy a dollar ticket and dream. Poor people are much more likely to treat it as an investment, and spend a big chunk of their discretionary income. Plus since the lottery is run by the state it is so inefficient that only a small fraction of receipts goes to anything other than administration costs.

People should be able to gamble if they want; the state run lottery coupled with private gambling restrictions just forces people into the biggest sucker game of all.

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
Connecticut is lucky. Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun are stuck in the far southeast corner of the state. Most of their customers come from outside the state (as do most of Las Vegas and Atlantic City customers). That means Connecticut gets most of the benefits (e.g., taxes, employment to out of work Electric Boat types) but is only stuck with a portion of the social ills associated with gambling.


[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Why is it that 15 years ago Connecticut had no state income tax? Now they have two casinos AND a state income tax. I remember hearing how much money Foxwoods was giving the state in it's early days, supposedly for the right to have slot machines. But I also remember what the roads to Foxwoods used to look like, and the various stages in-between (the Sun too). And then there was all those extra State Troopers in the area. Could it be that the drain on the Connecticut tax payers is a good chunk of the money the State takes in?

I don't live there so I don't have all the facts. But you would think that a state that got by all those years without an income tax could make due with the addition of a couple of casinos.

[Wake up CALL]

I would guess that democrats are the reason they now have a state income tax. This is much more likely than casinos.

[Rick Nebiolo]

adios,

You need to be more specific regarding where I'm wrong so I can properly respond. I'm against the lottery and always have been. We discussed lottery in part in this thread (http://tinyurl.com/2xlur) on Other Topics a while back. If the forum search tool was better I'd find more examples.

Regards,

Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
With you there, man. Unbelievable that they go after anyone when the lottery offers 50% payback if you're lucky. And it's not harmless. Most middle-class lottery players buy a dollar ticket and dream. Poor people are much more likely to treat it as an investment, and spend a big chunk of their discretionary income. Plus since the lottery is run by the state it is so inefficient that only a small fraction of receipts goes to anything other than administration costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

We essentially agree here. The middle class spends an occasional buck to five bucks they can easily afford. The poor spend far more in absolute terms and far, far more relative to their disposable income. I doubt they think of it as in “investment” though.

The last time I checked (several years ago) 50% of a lottery ticket is returned in prize money, 34% is returned to the state as taxes, and 16% is the cost of operating the lottery including sending the honchos in the lottery commission to Paris with their wives for “conferences”. No major form of taxation is so inefficient.

[ QUOTE ]
People should be able to gamble if they want; the state run lottery coupled with private gambling restrictions just forces people into the biggest sucker game of all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here I disagree. There should be some outlet for full scale casino gambling and IMO that outlet should have remained in Las Vegas and perhaps Atlantic City. Casino gambling should not be made convenient for most of the population. It’s getting that way now.

Regards,

Rick

[limon]

hollywood park, the bike, HG, etc....i think the casinos are the best thing going in most of these neighborhoods.

[Rick Nebiolo]

George,

I would think other factors contributed to Connecticut’s adoption of the income tax given the pressure on most states to raise revenue and the self-defeating nature of having higher sales taxes then your close neighbors. Of course Connecticut spends money to provide services (better road access, police) to the casinos, but one would think it is far less than what they take in. I don’t have time to research it though.

When I say Connecticut is lucky, I’m saying that since most of Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun’s customers come from out of state, the social problems (e.g., bankruptcy) caused by problem gambling are shouldered by neighboring states. Most of California’s Indian casinos attract a customer base primarily consisting of Californians. California won’t be so “lucky”.

Regards,

Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
hollywood park, the bike, HG, etc....i think the casinos are the best thing going in most of these neighborhoods.

[/ QUOTE ]

Card clubs (especially the poker section) aren’t full-scale casinos and whatever downside they have for Los Angeles County in general they are less than those that would be caused by casinos with slots.

There is no doubt that the City of Commerce, Bell Gardens, Gardena, Inglewood, and Hawaiian Gardens get far more financial gain from their card clubs than they pay out for services to the clubs. But most of the customers come from outside these cities, so the social costs (which I believe are FAR less for poker than for lotteries and slots) are born by the people in neighboring cities.

Note that if tax revenue from card clubs went to the county but card clubs had to be voted in by the city, there would be no card clubs.

Regards,

Rick

[cero_z]

A belated Happy New Year to you, Rick!

I don't think your analogy about the kid seeing porn at a convenience store holds up, and this relates to my earlier claim that your post was contemptuous of the inner city (read: poor) residents. Because, you see, a kid is a minor, someone we all agree is not fully qualified to make decisions in his/her own best interest. A poor person is not the same. Many poor people make their already oppressive financial circumstances into full-blown catastrophes through gambling. Similarly, middle-class and rich folks sometimes destroy their own financial lives with gambling. But I think we have to give people credit for being as mature and intelligent as your grandparents are (even though some people are not), rather than take the paternalistic attitude that gambling is all right for some if they choose it, but not for others. It's not our right to decide for sane adults what's best for their own lives.

As far as gambling addicts knowing better than to live near gambling meccas, what are alcoholics to do? Restricting vices to relatively inaccessible places just doesn't seem compatible with the notions of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness we hold dear in this country.

Hopefully, this post clarifies why I don't don't think I was making a straw man out of your argument. To restate my point, we don't have the right to say that poor adults shouldn't be allowed to make the same choices as wealthier adults. I interpret the content of your first post and your response to me as disagreeing with this.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Worse? Worse than what? How much necessary state control and regulation is needed, in your opinion, to curb people's "vices"? Or put it another way - How much individual freedom should be [needs to be] curtailed to stop some peoples urges at self-destructive behaviors?

[/ QUOTE ]

I’ll use some simple examples because I got to get going soon. I don’t think the government should expend resources shutting down football pools. But the government shouldn’t be in the business of running their own numbers racket (i.e., the lottery).

I believe a place like Las Vegas is a healthy outlet for the gambling urge on a national scale. Since it is hard to get from Los Angeles, a guy with $40 in his pocket, no money in the bank (or no bank account) and a bill due wouldn’t bother making the effort to drive five hours to get there. That same guy will dump that $40 into a slot machine if he only had to drive ten minutes to the Commerce. And a lot more of the poor will play slots before they play poker.

[ QUOTE ]
You cannot stop the outlet of moronic behavior from a species that throughout recorded history has excelled in brutality, ignorance, imbecility, and mass insanity.

[/ QUOTE ]

This species also builds hospitals, helps strangers, landed on the moon and so on but that is off topic.

Society can’t and shouldn’t stop someone who really wants to dump money into slot machines from doing so. But as a society we don’t have to make in convenient. Keep slots and casino style gambling outside cities, or even better keep it restricted to Las Vegas (yeah I know, Las Vegas is a city but it is a city built on the gambling of tourists).

[ QUOTE ]
The dangerously insane should be shot – the rest can lounge around in casinos were they can do little damage except to themselves and their closest relations.

[/ QUOTE ]

When a family man blows most of his money on slots rather than saving it for his child’s college education, society as a whole will pay.

Regards,

Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
As I've stated before, don't tell the people of Nevada that gambling is an economic cancer.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I’ve more or less stated before, most Nevada gamblers are tourists, so any social costs caused by gambling are primarily shouldered by people that live outside of Nevada.

California Indian casinos primarily attract Californians. Put them in the cities and they will attract even more Californians, especially the poor, many of whom never before had convenient access to a slot machine.

Regards,

Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

cero_z,

I've got to run but I've posted a link of your post to my desktop so I won't forget to answer it maybe tomorrow.

Regards,

Rick

[adios]

"As I’ve more or less stated before, most Nevada gamblers are tourists, so any social costs caused by gambling are primarily shouldered by people that live outside of Nevada. "

The fact that Nevada attracts tourists is irrelevant IMO. Like what social costs? Are you referring to the same ones that are inherent in the lottery? Methinks that we should proceed to discuss what the "social costs" of gambling really are including data to support such conclusions.

We had a thread a long time ago about the lottery and the marginal utility of the poor. I made a point that I beleived the most impoverished in our society had "increasing marginal utility" i.e. that the most impoverished in our society were much better off taking the worst of it with their money to improve their lot than saving it. Here's a link that discusses utility and purchasing a lottery ticket. Hogendorn refers to Dr. Jan Hogendorn who wrote a paper that I don't have a link for but I do have Hogendorn's email address somewhere and I'll try to get a link for the paper (it may be accessible through this site somehow I don't know):

Where's My Million (http://www.colby.edu/colby.mag/issues/87n3/million/2.html)


According to Hogendorn, the decision about whether to buy a lottery ticket pivots on one fundamental question: what is a dollar worth? Research by Milton Friedman and Leonard Savage of the University of Chicago regarding the "marginal utility" of money helps explain the unusual enthusiasm of lottery players to fork over their greenbacks, says Hogendorn. "Friedman and Savage explain that increases in income that raise the relative position of individuals in their own class but do not shift them out of their class yield diminishing marginal utility, while increases that shift them into a higher class with improved social and economic status yield increasing marginal utility," Hogendorn said. In other words, a dollar isn't worth much compared to the chance at getting rich.
A recent study conducted at four urban shelters revealed that 86 percent of the residents had played the lottery and more than 40 percent still were purchasing tickets regularly. Hogendorn says these findings aren't particularly surprising. The truth is, he concedes, buying a lottery ticket offers a chance--remote, but a chance nevertheless--to swiftly and irrevocably change one's life forever. It's a powerful inducement. "If I'm a homeless person, what other thing can I do that will offer me the same opportunity to change my life and pull me out of poverty so quickly?" said Hogendorn. "It only costs me a dollar. I could try to save a few bucks and go back to school or invest my meager income in the stock market, but those won't pay off for a long time, if they pay off at all."
Acknowledging that the findings are controversial, Hogendorn says data clearly show that poor people are the biggest losers in lotteries. "The common refutation from the lottery people is that the poor don't spend more money in the lottery than rich people, but that's an ineffective response. Poor people are spending more as a percentage of their income," he said.
While persons in higher income brackets might play the lottery as a fun way to blow a couple of bucks, he says, poor ticket buyers are more likely to view the activity as a form of investment. "The poor have fewer alternative ways to invest, in real estate, the stock market or elsewhere, so the lottery is seen less as play and more as a chance to transform their lives," Hogendorn said.
Lottery administrators understand this and exploit it, Hogendorn says. "They are selling hope."
For example, a lottery advertisement in a poor Chicago neighborhood pictures a black hand holding a ticket under the slogan, "This could be your ticket out." In Ohio, lottery officials suggested to their administrators that advertising be concentrated during periods of the month when government benefit checks and Social Security payments were released.
The Landau Guide, a widely used book that describes ways to successfully operate a lottery, emphasizes the importance of providing a prize that "will improve people's circumstances in a way they cannot achieve otherwise," Hogendorn said. "The top prize is the main benchmark. [Landau] implies that advertising of big winnings can decisively overcome normal risk aversion and the caution that would ordinarily be generated by the very long odds."
Another major factor in lottery ticket buying is plain old optimism, Hogendorn says. "[Ticket buyers] act on the assumption that when you're hot you're hot," he said. It's an ancient form of foolhardiness. And it is not confined to the poor and uneducated. A recent study of Yale undergraduates revealed that 40 percent believed they could improve their chances of predicting a coin toss by "practicing." Presumably, Hogendorn says, they were deluded by what Adam Smith described in The Wealth of Nations as "the overweening conceit which the greater part of men have of their own abilities [and] the absurd presumption in their own good fortune."
Perhaps that helps explain why a New York man spent $3,000--money he had planned to use for vocational school--to purchase Powerball tickets during last summer's jackpot frenzy. The popularity of lotteries may say more about human nature than about economic decision making. But for a rational economist, it's not that simple, Hogendorn says.
"Economists consider consumer preference to be reasonable. If you want to buy a Beanie Baby an economist considers that to be a reasonable exercise of your choice. But in the case of lotteries, with the value of the bet being so negative, a rational economist must consider what external factors are involved beyond the value of the bet."
Even given the "desirability" of playing the lottery for social movement, fun or misguided perspectives about luck, fewer people would be duped if the government wasn't pushing it so hard, Hogendorn says.
Lotteries use a marketing device called "framing," he says. It involves a three-pronged strategy to sell consumers on the benefits of lottery gambling. "The government presents the lottery as legitimate and therefore removes the stigma of doing something 'wrong,' it paints lotteries as a conveyor of social benefits and confirms that winning the big prize is a valid possibility," he said. In combination, these messages produce a mindset that helps overcome players' normal risk aversion, Hogendorn says.
"If the government says something is legitimate it's more convincing than if the Psychic Network says it," he said. "Compare the current situation with the way it was when the numbers rackets were run out of Chicago. The rackets were advertised by word of mouth. You would have to weigh in your own mind, first, how that information was coming to you, and, two, that because the government had declared the activity illegal that it wasn't legitimate. There was always some level of mistrust. But now, with the government not only saying that this is legitimate but actually trying to persuade people that it's a good thing, why would anybody pause to consider whether this was a legitimate activity?"
On the second point, that lotteries earmark proceeds for specific programs as a means to buoy public support, Hogendorn is equally trenchant. "I find it objectionable that states attempt to fool consumers into thinking that they are raising valuable support for good causes when the reality typically is that the money is merely replacing other funds that are shifted somewhere else," he said. Research has shown that earmarked lottery revenue often is used to underwrite budget cuts in areas such as education and sometimes results in a net loss of money, according to Hogendorn. Legislators are less likely to appropriate funds to support education if they believe it is the beneficiary of a lottery gravy train, he says.
"I think of it this way," Hogendorn said. "There would be resistance to buying lottery tickets on the part of a lot of people because it does not sound like a sensible bet--the odds are too low. But their thinking can be changed if they receive persuasive information that even if they lose, they are doing something for the public good. Their reluctance to do it is reduced by the state's activity."
Finally, Hogendorn says, the suggestion that winning the big prize is a reasonable possibility is an attempt to deceive the public. The odds of winning seldom are realistically presented and in some cases are purposely vague and misleading. Hogendorn discovered a Connecticut Lotto advertisement that stated the chance of winning at "30 to 1" without indicating that those were the odds for winning any prize, not of any size. The chances of winning the big, multi-million dollar prize were 10 million to one. "It is governments that are explicitly using techniques like these to get people to participate," he said.
"There is no doubt in my mind" that government sanctioning of lotteries has contributed to the proliferation of casinos and other gambling venues, Hogendorn says. Internet lotteries are the latest and perhaps most troubling offshoot of government-sanctioned gambling, he says, because they are almost impossible to regulate and monitor. And they invite the participation of underage players who could not legally purchase a lottery ticket over the counter. Hogendorn says that when his student research assistant dialed up an Internet lottery in Liechtenstein there was no attempt made to verify his age. "Most impressive of all," Hogendorn said, "the credit card used for the bet belonged to my mother, who is dead."
Hogendorn does not want to ban lottery advertisments or restrict their number, but he says he would like greater oversight of lottery operations from a consumer perspective. "I think states should be subject to the same regulations that private firms must abide by in their advertising," he said. "The states get away with things a private firm could never get away with."
He also believes that government sponsorship of lotteries is fundamentally coercive and that in the hands of private companies, consumers would be making choices based on the "fairness of the bet" rather than factors unrelated to the games themselves. "If you police the ads and take away the automatic legitimacy [of government sponsorship], people could assess whether their participation in the lottery was a good idea. The state could still take its cut by taxing the profits of the private company. To me, that would be preferable," Hogendorn said.
Does he think that will happen? "I wouldn't say it will never happen; never is a long time," Hogendorn said. "The enormous popularity of lotteries in the early nineteenth century turned to revulsion and eventual extinction for most state lotteries by the late part of the century. But I see no evidence that people will change their minds about lotteries if the advertising is not reformed."


What does this have to do with casinos, the poor, and "social costs?" Well if you consider playing the lottery a form of gambling I think it has a lot to do with this subject. Gambling is readily available to the poor already in the form of lotteries and to think that other forms of illegal, unregulated gambling isn't readily available to the impoverished strikes me as being a bit naive. I can't possibly see how casinos would effect the "social costs" of gambling in the least when we talk about the poor. If we want to effect the "social costs" of gambling incurred by the poor as a society, we have to change the utility functions of the poor so that their utility functions are such that they have "decreasing marginal utility" instead.

[adios]

"The nation would be far better off if casino style gambling stayed restricted to relatively inaccessible places such as Las Vegas and Atlantic City. A litle bit of hard to get to and hard to obtain vice is OK I suppose. But casinos within a twenty minute drive to most of the population are another story."

I totally disagree with this statement i.e. I think there is any clear evidence that this is the case. Without any clear evidence that this is the case, there is no rationale to be so restricive. I addressed my points in a reponse above regarding the "social costs" to the poor.

[Zeno]

I enjoyed your response and in general I agree with some of your points. Thanks for the clarifications.

[ QUOTE ]
This species also builds hospitals, helps strangers, landed on the moon and so on but that is off topic.


[/ QUOTE ]

Must you trot out the positive aspects of a species I deplore so much? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]
But as a society we don’t have to make in convenient.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably one of the core questions that many have disagreements on. How convenient should society [the government] make it to engage in gambling in all its forms or buy liquor, sex, etc and other such "sins"? Controlling convenience to enforce or lead people to more supposed worthy patterns of behavior usually entails some form of regulations or laws and other strictures that curtail man’s inherent freedoms. This is admittedly a difficult and large issue that certainly covers more than just gambling and the building of more casinos. I think we would differ on the amount of tension or interplay between man’s supposed “sinful” behaviors and trying to steer men to “positive attributes”, and the amount of freedoms everyone should be allowed - I error on the extremes of individual freedoms.

Where this line of tension is (if it is even a line) is one that could be debated endlessly, and in fact is the subject of endless debates.


[ QUOTE ]
When a family man blows most of his money on slots rather than saving it for his child’s college education, society as a whole will pay.


[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know that this individual would save any money for his child’s education with this $40? Given his pattern of behavior, I submit it is more probable that he will spend the $40 on beer, or in the local titty bar, or maybe even for fishing tackle. It becomes very hard to force people to behave in ways that you deem beneficial to society as a whole. Who are you (or I) to tell this person what they should or should not do with their money? It takes a lot of faith and not a small dose of clairvoyance to make such a statement.
[We are both dealing with a hypothetical situation but I think we can both see each others point of view.]

Society as a whole pays for allowing individual freedoms to flourish; I error on the side of a large payment to maintain all the freedoms that many others and I cherish so much.

Regards,

-Zeno

[andyfox]

"I am shocked, shocked, to find gambling going on in this establishment."

"Here are your winnings sir."

"Oh, thank you very much."

-lines written by Theo Epstein's grandfather and great-uncle, from Casablanca.

[adios]

I realize that you oppose the lottery. My points about the lottery are meant to argue that playing the lottery is "rational" behavior for the poorest in our society. Really I believe that John Q Taxpayer ultimately bares the economic cost of the lottery. I suppose this would be true if casino gambling was very easily available to the impoverished as well. So I surmise that you advocate eliminating the lottery first and preventing casino gambling from being more widespread. I do think though that since gambling is "rational" behavior for the highly impoverished that illicit and illegal gambling would flourish providing the highly impoverished with a way to gamble. Perhaps the situation regarding drugs in the inner city would indicate that this is true. So no offense but I think your apparent argument that the poor would be unduly harmed is weak. I just get fed up with government legislating moral behavior where I feel they have no business in doing so.

[George Rice]

If I'm not mistaken, Connecticut adopted an income tax when Lowell Weicker was governor. Although this former republican senator was considered a liberal republican.

[Rick Nebiolo]

adios,

You wrote: “The fact that Nevada attracts tourists is irrelevant IMO.

From a worldwide or nationwide perspective you are right, but not from Nevada’s perspective. The money lost to the casinos comes from outside the state. That helps Nevada’s economy. But I’m not anti-Las Vegas or Nevada. I just think its better for society when most of the nations population has to drive several hours or fly to get there.

”Like what social costs? Are you referring to the same ones that are inherent in the lottery?

Yes more or less. The lottery is a disaster; except the damage is so spread out it is hardly noticed.

Methinks that we should proceed to discuss what the "social costs" of gambling really are including data to support such conclusions.

Then this needs to go on the other topics forum and “MMMMM” needs to get involved. I’m too tired to look for data ;-).

”We had a thread a long time ago about the lottery and the marginal utility of the poor. I made a point that I beleived the most impoverished in our society had "increasing marginal utility" i.e. that the most impoverished in our society were much better off taking the worst of it with their money to improve their lot than saving it. Here's a link that discusses utility and purchasing a lottery ticket. Hogendorn refers to Dr. Jan Hogendorn who wrote a paper that I don't have a link for but I do have Hogendorn's email address somewhere and I'll try to get a link for the paper (it may be accessible through this site somehow I don't know)

Good article on the lottery. My guess is I was involved in the old lottery thread. One problem with the article is that poor people don’t tend to “invest a dollar”; rather they invest $10 to $50 a week. That money if saved or invested in tuition would really have a better chance of improving people’s lives.

The lottery gives low-income people false hope. It undermines the virtues of thrift, industriousness, saving or studying for the future and so on (you know, all that Boy Scout stuff) that were once much more a part of the value system of the working poor. That value system used to turn the poor and their descendants into the middle class and rich. That is a lot to lose.

Regards,

Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

”I realize that you oppose the lottery.”

Now I realize you realize I oppose the lottery. I should read more of the thread first rather than reply top to bottom /images/graemlins/grin.gif

”So I surmise that you advocate eliminating the lottery first and preventing casino gambling from being more widespread.

The lottery won’t be eliminated in my lifetime. But perhaps the spread of full scale casino gambling can be slowed.

”I do think though that since gambling is "rational" behavior for the highly impoverished that illicit and illegal gambling would flourish providing the highly impoverished with a way to gamble.”

If gambling is illicit and illegal there will be less of it.

” I just get fed up with government legislating moral behavior where I feel they have no business in doing so.”

The government (as the agent of its citizens) has an obligation and right to structure society so that moral behavior and virtue can flourish. Halting the expansion of full scale casino gambling is one way.

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

Zeno,
One thing I wonder is would this thread have gotten more views and participation on the Other Topics Forum /images/graemlins/grin.gif

”This is probably one of the core questions that many have disagreements on. How convenient should society [the government] make it to engage in gambling in all its forms or buy liquor, sex, etc and other such "sins"? Controlling convenience to enforce or lead people to more supposed worthy patterns of behavior usually entails some form of regulations or laws and other strictures that curtail man’s inherent freedoms. This is admittedly a difficult and large issue that certainly covers more than just gambling and the building of more casinos. I think we would differ on the amount of tension or interplay between man’s supposed “sinful” behaviors and trying to steer men to “positive attributes”, and the amount of freedoms everyone should be allowed - I error on the extremes of individual freedoms.

Good point, well written. We probably don’t differ much here.

Where this line of tension is (if it is even a line) is one that could be debated endlessly, and in fact is the subject of endless debates.

This line is what got me thinking of the Other Topics Forum above ;-).

”How do you know that this individual would save any money for his child’s education with this $40? Given his pattern of behavior, I submit it is more probable that he will spend the $40 on beer, or in the local titty bar, or maybe even for fishing tackle. It becomes very hard to force people to behave in ways that you deem beneficial to society as a whole. Who are you (or I) to tell this person what they should or should not do with their money?

I’m not advocating forcing people to behave in certain ways. But it is we as citizens of a great nation who should endeavor to structure our society so that most of our fellow citizens will tend to do positive things with their time and the money. That won’t be helped by putting a casino within a twenty-minute drive of most of us.

”Society as a whole pays for allowing individual freedoms to flourish; I error on the side of a large payment to maintain all the freedoms that many others and I cherish so much.

Good point. I’m all for freedom, especially the freedom of citizens to vote/campaign against the expansion of full scale casino gambling. (but let’s leave room for poker).

Regards,

Rick

[MtSmalls]

Wow. As somewhat proud as I am to have kicked off a 6 page debate, with well reasoned debate I might add, I have to say it wasn't really the angle I was initially shooting at.

My concern/thought was that casinos (and the lottery to some degree) are the EASY way out, and at best a short term solution to the economic downturn most regions are suffering through currently. However, I don't believe that they are LONG-Term solutions to the problem of expanding the economic base of any given region, and I am concerned with too many lawmakers (state, regional or national) taking the easy way out, rather than really working on making their states a better place to live. The casinos in Detroit or the riverboats up and down the Mississippi have added significant benefit to their communities and taxes to the state coffers and some social problems as well. But it did not reduce the state's dependence on the auto industry did it? One can argue that casinos HAVE in fact bootstrapped many of the indian tribes into a semblence of prosperity, but for how long? SOME tribes are making the most of the windfall and investing the profits in educational facilities and housing, but this is not always the case. This doesn't speak to the non-indian gaming establishments either, of which I am concerned that we will see more and more of in the future.

I am not against the expansion of gaming per se, only against the expansion in areas where it is just a matter of taking the easy road, rather than truly improving the state or region.