Lotteries: America's $70B Shame • Hacker News Board

Re: Lotteries: America's $70B Shame

#51

Post by Amezarak » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 5:26 PM UTC

nostrebored wrote: post #37

calebm wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly what I came to say. I'm not a gambler, but the idea of making gambling illegal seems insane to me in "the land of the free".

Spend some more time around casinos. Watch your opinion change as you realize what depressing things it says about our society that we let people weep on the pavement because they've lost their house on a literal crapshoot. Spending a good bit of my formative years in Biloxi seriously changed my attitude around all of this.

It's good to hear that from someone else.

The degree to which the casino industry in Biloxi is celebrated as a heroic engine of economic development and generosity depresses me. The Coast was no utopia before the casinos. And sure, yeah, the casinos employ a bunch of people and some tax money goes to local schools.

But seeing people - often poor people - gamble away their lives, seeing how much prostitution came into play, seeing how many hard drugs come in through them...I don't think the price was worth it.

But all you'll see in the local paper, and hear from most locals, is laudatory: casinos are the savior. We need more of them!

Re: Lotteries: America's $70B Shame

#52

Post by timbowhite » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 5:26 PM UTC

wrong_variable wrote: post #35

crazy1van wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think his caveat of "barring negative impact on others" pretty much covers these cases.

> "barring negative impact on others" You think taking what little money poor people have from them via allowing them to spend it on lottery does not have social consequences ?

Well then the government should create laws allowing it to dictate what you can spend your money on if you make less than $X per year. You know, to prevent social consequences.

Re: Lotteries: America's $70B Shame

#53

Post by xixi77 » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 5:27 PM UTC

wrong_variable wrote: post #35

crazy1van wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think his caveat of "barring negative impact on others" pretty much covers these cases.

> "barring negative impact on others" You think taking what little money poor people have from them via allowing them to spend it on lottery does not have social consequences ?

In your line of reasoning, should we perhaps also introduce mandatory drug testing for people with low income, and prohibit them from buying alcohol and cigarettes? Surely, these purchases have more social consequences than lottery tickets.

Re: Lotteries: America's $70B Shame

#54

Post by debacle » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 5:27 PM UTC

exolymph wrote: post #15

This issue boils down to the proper function of government: ensure people's freedom to act as they wish (barring negative impact on others), or enforce the "healthiest" behavior? Yes, buying lottery tickets for any reason other than entertainment is irrational. But does that mean it shouldn't be allowed? People are choosing to spend their money like this. Personally, I prefer a government that lets people do stupid t…

Regardless of how you feel about the function of government, the government itself shouldn't be party to running a lottery. Tax private lotteries, outlaw them, don't tax them, whatever, but the government stepping in and running lotteries is a massive overstep.

Re: Lotteries: America's $70B Shame

#55

Post by ryandrake » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 5:28 PM UTC

xixi77 wrote: post #43

Really, people should pause before calling behavior that does not conform to their model or their own preferences "irrational". The typical argument goes like "Expected monetary payoff is negative, therefore buying a lottery ticket an irrational decision" -- but this ignores, for example, the possibility of winning a life-changing prize, that would provide enjoyment far above and beyond what e.g. investing money spen…

Isn't the "Expected monetary payoff" of starting a company negative?

Re: Lotteries: America's $70B Shame

#56

Post by liber8 » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 5:29 PM UTC

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #18

"When you play the lottery, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. But it's better than using drugs or alcohol because when you use drugs or alcohol, you always lose" - "American Movie" People who don't play the lottery are always so quick to dismiss it. They disregard how accessible it is - you don't need a next-gen console or flat-screen tv, just cash - as they disregard how independently fun it is - you could b…

"you could be sitting alone in a dark room with nothing but a lottery ticket in your hand and be perfectly satisfied with fantasies of winning"

This is one of the biggest reasons I dislike the lottery, from a societal perspective: it satisfies people who would otherwise have an incentive to go out and create their own success. You can see this anytime the jackpots get big enough that non-players buy tickets. There is a noticeable drop in productivity as people sit back and fantasize about winning $1 billion or more. Instead of actually doing something that would improve their lives, they're happy sitting in the dark and fantasizing. If that's a one-day a year occurrence, fine. But its clearly not a one-day occurrence to the regular players, and I think it negatively impacts their lives far beyond the actual cost of the tickets.

Re: Lotteries: America's $70B Shame

#57

Post by eric_h » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 5:29 PM UTC

sremani wrote: post #38

For me lotteries is one of the reason, I have grown skeptical of State. 1. They Lie, Lie about funding schools and lottery is the only way to do it. 2. Lie about the Prize money, the advertisements of lottery are untruthful and a private entity would be charged with fraud. 3. The practice of gaming the game, i.e. they try to make lotteries popular and sink a lot of money for advertising, they claim 50% goes for prize…

> Even if it is entertainment, which it is not

Just because you don't find it entertaining does not mean it's not entertainment.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your other points, but gambling of all types is most certainly an entertainment product, regardless of its tendency to create addiction, etc.

Re: Lotteries: America's $70B Shame

#58

Post by Guvante » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 5:32 PM UTC

xixi77 wrote: post #43

Really, people should pause before calling behavior that does not conform to their model or their own preferences "irrational". The typical argument goes like "Expected monetary payoff is negative, therefore buying a lottery ticket an irrational decision" -- but this ignores, for example, the possibility of winning a life-changing prize, that would provide enjoyment far above and beyond what e.g. investing money spen…

Most of the complaints about people playing the lottery being irrational are about people spending huge amounts of money, not about playing the lottery at all.

For instance the recent story of someone dumping their rent check into Powerball.

Re: Lotteries: America's $70B Shame

#59

Post by smt88 » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 5:33 PM UTC

bbarn wrote: post #42

My father once won $100,000 from a scratch off ticket. It was a $20.00 scratch off ticket. I gave him crap for years over it because between playing Keno, and buying other scratch offs, he's probably spent close to that trying to recreate the effect. The thing is, he's very serious about his lottery. He enters every losing ticket into a second chance registration on Maryland's lottery site. (This was how I got him to…

I'm not surprised that there are anecdotes of people who play in a (mostly) harmless way. One question I have is whether there might be another way for your dad to have an equally fulfilling amount of fun without losing as much money. It would depend on the individual, obviously.

The problem with lotteries is that many of the players aren't like your dad. There are some serious ethical questions that arise when you think of lotteries are guaranteed to lose the vast majority of players a substantial amount of money:

1) If the state didn't run the lottery, who would? Would that money get funneled into public works if the state didn't run the lottery?

2) Is it ethical to market the lottery in order to create new players?

3) When the lottery is marketed (as it heavily is in many states), is it targeting vulnerable groups, like the poor?

4) Is playing the lottery an expression of hopelessness for some people? They know that their $5 is never going to multiply to $10 (the way it might for a wealthier person), so it's easier to risk that $5 for a chance to win $5 million.

Re: Lotteries: America's $70B Shame

#60

Post by rm_-rf_slash » Mon, Mar 28, 2016, 5:33 PM UTC

slapresta wrote: post #45

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #18

"When you play the lottery, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. But it's better than using drugs or alcohol because when you use drugs or alcohol, you always lose" - "American Movie" People who don't play the lottery are always so quick to dismiss it. They disregard how accessible it is - you don't need a next-gen console or flat-screen tv, just cash - as they disregard how independently fun it is - you could b…

> It's like discussing guns with people who will never use them. You mean that it also creates a toxic culture which disproportionally hurts poor people and minorities? Agreed! > lotteries are great sources of revenue (better than state corporate income taxes? Holy cow!) They're only so because the US has this inmensely powerful anti-tax culture and lobbies. Plus, lotteries take money from the poor, which means they'…

Face it: you or anyone else isn't gonna get poor people to stop playing the lottery any more than corporations are gonna stop getting cozy tax breaks, or getting people who make decent money to campaign for it to be taxed more.

So the question I ask is: what is an acceptable compromise? Without a lottery, how much tax revenue are you going to need to make up the difference? How high can taxes be raised before people and corporations decide to move to the next state over, or even leave the country?

Taxes, lotteries, vices, addictions, weapons, they'll always be a part of our society and we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking things we don't like can simply be deleted. So, where do you draw the lines, and where do you compromise?