81–90 of 205 posts
I saw someone suggest better odds and smaller jackpots. That isn’t a solution, win $1000 and $1000 is going to buy crack or similar.
If you play the lottery and are poor, I want the government managing as much of your spending as possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "You Can't Ask That" episode on gambling in Australia was a massive eye-opener for me. They interview a bunch of people who are lifetime gambling addicts. Its shocking how badly its ruined their lives. I have no idea how many people who gamble regularly have a problem with it; but I'd support banning gambling entirely. https://iview.abc.net.au/show/you-can-t-ask-that/series/2/vi... (Does iView work outside Austra…
> but I'd support banning gambling entirely If this was possible, that would be great. But you cannot eliminate a service where there is sufficient demand. You can only drive them underground, which frequently cause worse externalities for society than the original things being banned (drugs, prohibition-era alcohol ban, prostitution).
There's an interesting theory that the solution to this is to subsidize the lottery and improve the odds significantly. Take to the extreme and you could essentially implement UBI this way. I also don't think poor people are wrong to think a chance of getting a life-changing amount of money is a worthwhile luxury spend compared to the other available options. They may be wrong about the probability, but instead of fi…
Some might consider UBI an implementation of John Rawls' Difference principle [0], that distributive inequalities should work to the advantage of the worst-off. Lotteries would support utilitarians' counterargument that one may very well prefer to roll the dice on his or her welfare, rather than accept a guaranteed, minimally satisfactory baseline.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness#Second_pri...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"Offer a lottery with a high payout rate and flatten jackpots to the extent they don't cause a shift into other worse sorts of gambling" What is meant here by "flattening" jackpots? And how does it help?
Ireland has/had an interesting system where they sell bonds where the interest is paid like a sweepstakes. It’s like buying into a raffle, except you can get your money out.
The argument for the state having a monopoly on lotteries is that if there wasn’t a legal lottery illegal lotteries would proliferate. Thus to protect people, the state should run it as it would then be guaranteed to be fair and free of the criminal element (mobsters, etc.). Ideally, the lotto would just take in enough to pay the winners and administrative expenses. However, most states have abused this monopoly and…
Came here to say exactly this. People will play numbers games organized by the mob, so it does make sense to give them an honest game and keep the money from crooks. But the state take should be small. And absolutely no advertising.
The argument for the state having a monopoly on lotteries is that if there wasn’t a legal lottery illegal lotteries would proliferate. Thus to protect people, the state should run it as it would then be guaranteed to be fair and free of the criminal element (mobsters, etc.). Ideally, the lotto would just take in enough to pay the winners and administrative expenses. However, most states have abused this monopoly and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I find it hard to resist a scratch off from time to time myself. As long as you aren't doing it to win but instead to enjoy yourself gambling, and you do it with disposable income, this is fine. Don't beat yourself up for enjoying something mathematically suboptimal. > Even if they think it’s impossible to work themselves out of debt they hope they’ll “win big” one day keeps them going to an extent. It’s really jus…
>As long as you aren't doing it to win but instead to enjoy yourself gambling What exactly is there to enjoy about a scratch ticket beyond the hope of winning?
This is true as is the nature of "food deserts" in the poorer neighbors, at least where I live – there are higher concentrations of convenience stores, drive-thrus, and gas stations that feature items like tobacco products, alcohol, and lottery tickets that similarly exploit the local populations impulse purchases and eat up what little income they earn from two or more low-paying jobs. It's viciously cyclical and th…
Honestly its so much wasted human capacity. Its not even the case that we don’t have enough: there’s enough food to adequately feed everyone. Its a logistical problem and when markets are left to their own they will obviously lead to situations where only the cheapest products win out (not the most nutritious).
Vending machine owners stock what sells. People vote with their dollars and their attention. We are free to choose what we eat, and free to throw out the TV. Most enjoy watching the 'breaking news' propaganda rather than putting in some effort to cook a simple meal at home. Your body, your choice.
It is also "funny" how after generating so much money from those poor Black neighborhoods, how little the percentage of that money ever goes back to them. The states involved could very much legislate that a percentage of profits (and at what percentages) have to be shown benefiting the poor neighborhoods they are exploiting. But, we all know such problems will not be fixed (despite being exposed by the media), unless forced to and they will be fighting against it at every step.