I live in a state where there are no casinos however there is an Indian group that is trying to get land so they can build one. Of course, to make their points, they show lots of neat statistics about how many people are flocking to neighboring states to play Hold 'Em. Whereas those who are opposed (when they’re not content to just play the ethical cannard) will try and portray casino gambling as actually bad for the economy in surrounding areas. What’s the truth here?
(Does asking for truth make this a "General Question?)
Gambling is good for a local economy if it brings in money from outside the locality. However, it’s completely service and entertainment based. Over the entire system, there’s no increase in production of any kind.
Globally, it’s only a costly way to redistribute money, IMO. Though I assume you could make the case that it provides entertainment, which has a value.
Purely at the local level, of course, it creates jobs, so it’s good for the economy of the town that manages to attract gamblers.
It only creates jobs in the local area if the gamblers come from outside the area.
Gambling is ‘good for the economy’ in the same sense that movie theaters, bowling alleys, and hockey games are good for the economy. None of them create new production or add to the aggregate wealth in society. It’s also impossible to answer without asking, “Compared to what?” If the people who stopped gambling did something productive instead, then gambling is damaging to the economy. But if gambling allows people to relax and enjoy their lives so that they work harder, then it’s a good thing.
Also, gambling and other recreations help to keep the money supply moving, which probably does stimulate the economy slightly. But really, it’s better to think of a strong economy as one that allows the people to spend their money gambling or going to hockey games. It’s what we have a good economy for. Recreation, enjoying life.
That’s because of the concentration. You can’t use Amsterdam as an example of why legalized drugs are bad, because the situation in Amsterdam is unique because people from all over the world go there for that freedom. If drugs were legal everywhere the usage wouldn’t be concentrated in one particular spot. If gambling were legalized more widely, then it would be spread out and be fairly normative. What is crime like in countries that don’t have a moralistic restriction on gambling?
Also, production in and of itself is not good for the economy. America has had a pretty good service economy for quite a while. Thinking that production is ‘good’ for the economy is production for production’s sake, and serves very little purpose. Are styrofoam cups and plates really adding to the aggregate wealth in any meaningful way?
Are there studies that show that an area that brought in a casino got worse or are we just saying that places that already have casinos have more crime?
Legalized gambling is always bad for the community. The big winners, by far, by very far, are the casino runners. Not the Indians or schools, as touted.
And the big losers are the families of the gamblers, most of whom have no real idea what they are spending until it’s gone. Some say it’s a tax on the stupid, but that forgets that the gamblers are often not stupid but not mathematically aware, and this is done on purpose. If there were more consumer protections in the gambling rackets there would be less gambling. Tricks like not having windows or clocks in the gambling halls, to intentionally confuse people how long they’d been there. Things like trying to imply card counting is cheating, when it’s a legal strategy and part of the basics of the odds.
And simply making the odds confusing on purpose. Did you know that most keno bets are at comparable odds except the top bets? Those pay the worst, yet the gambling public assumes that they pay the best because the payout is the most money, not the most proportionally. If the actual odds were given next to each bet, those sucker bets wouldn’t be so popular. And casinos have other dodgy things they do, like giving out coupons saying “Coupon value = $1 in Action” which actually means “Coupon value = 50¢ bet”.
When every little thing is tweaked to e dishonest, how can anyone think that the system is just clean fun?
Angels’Flight, do you have any worthwhile citations that show that the Indians who run these places are losers? Forguive me if I am mistaken, but your rant seems to be a moral stance against gambling than a fiscal one.
And it doesn’t have to just be the gambling that could have an effect on the economy. The largest casino near the (as in, on the other side of the street that informally marks the boundary line) Albuquerque metro area, Sandia Casino, has put in a large hotel, an apparently good amphitheatre, and what I am told is a damn good golf course. The golf course can bring in golfers, another venue for music means more concerts can come in which can potentially bring in dollars from other parts of the state, the hotel gives even more rooms for what are really Albuquerque’s big tourist attractions (the balloon fiesta and the state fair) and maybe people coming in from out of state for whatever reason will head up there and win or lose some money which will be spent in the Albuquerque economy. Besides, Albuquerque is practically a service/military economy already. There is some manufacturing in the area but the biggest influx comes from the feds thanks to Kirtland and Sandia. Having UNM brings in some more money. And so on.
How about the change in Las Vegas over the last 15 or so years? Last time I was in Vegas was nearly 15 years ago (I was 9) and the only family-friendly place was Circus Circus, which had just opened (they had a killer arcade.) Now of course Circus Circus is old and busted but the trend for years has been to make Vegas a place you can bring the whole family.