Study on Casino's Good Jobs

I had some problems with that study (6.00 / 2)

First, it was in part funded by The Construction Institute. Not exactly unbiased. http://www.ryanstake.net/2009/...

Second, the study looked mainly at the jobs themselves. It wasn't a systemic analysis at all the pros and cons of the job, including the cons of letting the industry in. Consider how many jobs would be lost because of those casinos -- local businesses that go under, etc. Consider that slots literally double the rate of addiction within 50 miles, which would bring Massachusetts to around a 5-6% rate of gambling addiction. With 6.5 million people in this state, that's roughly 325,000-390,000 people. The rosiest job creation predictions, made by people heavily connected to the industry, suggest maybe 15,000 jobs -- if you believe them (I don't) AND ignore the literally thousands of jobs in the greater region that are lost because of those casinos. But let's ignore the facts about how casinos have an overall negative job  multiplier effect and just consider the casino jobs themselves. Is it worth 325,000-390,000 addicts? A casino addict can ruin their entire family's lives -- 325,000 addicts amounts to 1.3 million families, assuming 4 people to a family. You're talking about ruining the lives of about 1 in 5 families of Massachusetts, without even counting the lives that will be ruined because of the crushing force of casinos on small businesses and regions.

Third, consider the fact that not all casinos have union jobs - in fact, a great many of them don't. I remember going to one of the casino hearings last year where it was admitted that there was no way to legally force any casino we allow in this state to have union jobs. If the jobs aren't union, they're not going to be good jobs, even for non college graduates. Don't take my word for it, take the word of the woman who sat on the Bobby Haynes panel on Thursday -- who spoke at length about how many of the jobs at Foxwoods stunk, didn't have good benefits and had wages that stagnated for at least a decade because they didn't have a union.

---

There are plenty of good jobs we could be creating in Massachusetts that were unionized, without letting in a crooked industry that will ruin the lives of hundreds of thousands of residents in Massachusetts and be the deathblow to hundreds and potentially thousands of our small businesses, owned locally, by people who care about their communities. I just can't understand why unions are so willing to sell their souls to this devil and betray many of the core values that make them so important. This casino legislation is a waste of our time year in and year out -- perhaps if we spent less time on wasting our energy and resources on the perpetual loser that is casinos, we could find real job growth, with strong unions, that won't ruin lives. Bobby, you listening?

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 11:13:01 AM CST

Take a step back (6.00 / 2)

You're talking about ruining the lives of about 1 in 5 families of Massachusetts,

I appreciate that this issue is important to you and that you've clearly investigated it and I've read your comments about it here and at Ryan's Take but are you telling me that if a resort casino is opened in Massachusetts, if I drive down Main St in my town, or ant town, every fifth house will then be the home of a family which has been ruined by gambling?  Seems illogical on it's face.

I don't gamble, I don't care if you do or don't. I do respect your passion and efforts, even if we disagree.

---

by: lodger @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 05:40:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

There are different of levels of ruined (0.00 / 0)

But, yes.  

Now, "ruined" is a strong word, but however you want to define it, these families would be a lot worse off than they otherwise would be. Even a family that loses its house could, with time, rise above it -- is their life "ruined?" Pick whichever word you'd like -- does "severely impacted" work for you?

Many more than those 1 in 5 families would be "severely impacted," too. Consider that there's many more than 6% of problem gambers who are at risk to become problem gamblers. These are people who use slots regularly, spending a lot of their discretionary income, but who don't use all of it and aren't quite addicted yet. That's a huge chunk of all slot users. If we had slots in this state, that represents literally millions upon millions of dollars that was being spent in the local economy and is now being spent at casinos.

A person I was friends with back in high school had a family which owned a video rental store. There were no Blockbusters nearby for a very long time, but when I was in HS, one moved in -- quickly wreaking havoc on his family's business. That was money being spent locally, growing local jobs, employing an entire extended family in the region, a family that was active in the local community, donating to a great many local causes. And it all went Poof, with all profits then sent back to Blockbuster Corporate HQ, not in the local economy, like what you'd get with a local business.

A casino is that, on steroids. We're talking literally hundreds and hundreds of local businesses that would go under or would have to severely cut back, just to break even, which I didn't even factor into my "1 in 5" figure. I think it's far more important to help these businesses than a casino, who's execs aren't from this state and don't care about this state and aren't the bedrocks of our communities. I think we should be supporting industries that aren't going to carve out whole new groups of addicts and people at risk of becoming addicts. Allowing casinos will mean many, many thousands of lives will truly be "ruined," while many more would probably be "severely impacted," with an entire spectrum of impacts in between. However we want to define these words, it's not a good thing -- these are families and businesses we should be trying to help and casinos just won't do that.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 17:06:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is worth a listen..... (6.00 / 2)

For all of the demands made by the anti-casino crowd for studies, studies, and more studies, here is a study that makes the case for allowing a resort casino or two into the Commonwealth.

Some key points...

Casino hotels workers make twice the minimum wage, much more likely to have health insurance benefits and employer provided pension plans.  

Massachusetts legislation is groundbreaking in it's provision for wage protection, health and safety provisions, career ladder provisions, training, child care provisions.

0% of casino hotel workers live at 100% of poverty level.  

Unionization is key to making these excellent jobs for the working class.

It's an interesting clip and worth taking a minute to listen.

Thanks for sharing Striker57

WE NEED A PUBLIC OPTION

---

by: liveandletlive @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 11:18:14 AM CST

But are these jobs with justice? (0.00 / 0)

The biggest story that came out of Thursday's casino hearing was not one of the gambling operators who testified denied that their business model, their product or their marketing was predatory.

1) They did not deny that casinos earn 90% of their gambling profits from 10% of the players, making 9 out of 10 casino visitors - the casual player- irrelevant to their business model. In a telling exchange, Senate Chair Karen Spilka pointedly asked a Mohegan Sun executive to respond to the 90%/10% fact and he deceptively provided her Mohegan's "property revenues" which includes revenues from non-predatory gambling sources.

2) They did not refute the powerful testimony by MIT's Dr. Natasha Schull that "electronic gambling machines are designed to treat every player as a potential addict" so the person will "play to extinction" - until their all their money is gone.  Nor did they deny Schull's research that modern electronic gambling machines are "a high tech version of loaded dice."  Can you imagine representatives from any other business testifying before a legislative committee right after a researcher from one of the world's most prestigious universities has just torn apart their core product and they don't offer even one response?

3) No one denied the testimony of Harvard Medical's Dr. Hans Breiter that the buzz or high people get from electronic gambling machines is "indistinguishable" from taking a hit of cocaine which is why when you put these machines in accessible locations where people can play them more than once a month, almost half the users have problem gambling behavior.

4) No one rebutted the charge that casino marketing practices are more extreme than those used by subprime mortgage lenders leading up to America's foreclosure crisis.

5) They did not deny the testimony of other presenters that the casino business model is dependent upon getting people into debt.

6) And they did not deny the testimony that this is the only product or service where the people who own it and promote it, don't use it.

I've read Striker57's posts on other issues and find that I share the same views on most of them. But on the issue of predatory gambling (a category to which the State Lottery belongs as well), I respectfully ask you to please explain how these are jobs with justice.

Les Bernal

---

by: StopPredatoryGambling @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 12:09:45 PM CST

What do you mean jobs with justice???. (6.00 / 2)

I am certain there is a negative impact to every job created.  Retail jobs serve as an injustice to shopaholics everywhere. Manufacturing jobs create pollution, use plastics and other products that negatively impact our environment.  Medical and motor vehicle claims analysts deny health care and reimbursement to millions of people. The only jobs that don't have a negative impact are government jobs, teachers, police, firefighters, etc.  

What do you mean by this.....

In a telling exchange, Senate Chair Karen Spilka pointedly asked a Mohegan Sun executive to respond to the 90%/10% fact and he deceptively provided her Mohegan's "property revenues" which includes revenues from non-predatory gambling sources.

Why wouldn't we want to see the revenue from non-gambling sources.  Were they positive? Do you have a link to those numbers? Why are you calling it "deceptive"?  can you explain that?

WE NEED A PUBLIC OPTION

---

by: liveandletlive @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 14:32:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And just because initially these are decent jobs... (0.00 / 0)

...doesn't mean "Hyatt Syndrome" won't strike and cause job degradation in the name of profits while the CEOs stay at the million plus pay level eating caviar...

Deborah Sirotkin Butler
AmberPaw dot @aol.com

"Failure to plan is planning to fail."
Proverb

---

by: AmberPaw @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 19:52:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So you're saying it's best to leave the unemployed (6.00 / 2)

unemployed, so they won't have to take such a risk.
I'm all for employee protections, and it appears the
legislature is also for employee protections with regard to casinos.  

Massachusetts legislation is groundbreaking in it's provision for wage protection, health and safety provisions, career ladder provisions, training, child care provisions.

WE NEED A PUBLIC OPTION

---

by: liveandletlive @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 20:50:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Bob, (6.00 / 1)

you build one casino -- and who's to say we get that Connecticut money back?

Consider this: the majority of money that a casino earns, even the Foxwoods of the world, comes within 50 miles of a casino. Put a casino in much of this state and Foxwoods is going to be about the same distance or closer to much of the state. All you'd be really doing is creating a whole bunch of new slot users, who spend their discretionary money in the not-locally owned casino, instead of the hundreds of local businesses that money was going to.

Consider this: The ONLY study that I've ever seen used to predict the amount of Massachusetts residents who use Connecticut casinos is from Clyde Barrow, who's research is flimsy at best (even David thought it was laughable). We don't know how much we "lose" or "save" by not having casinos in Massachusetts, because our state has never funded an honest, comprehensive study of all the pros and cons.

Consider this: As Senator Tucker says, "'The Deal' will change." Casinos always come back for more, the race tracks will always want more, more and more casino companies will want the ever-smaller slice of the NE slot pie. The slot industry is already spread thin, there's an ever diminishing return with every slot placed in this region, and NH and RI have already indicated they'd build full-scale resorts if we do. This is a race to the bottom. If we build a single casino in this state, we won't need to build another two to cover the state in the 50-mile casino bubbles where a casino's negative impacts are greatly heightened, the rest of New England will do it for us, which will diminish the profits of the Massachusetts casino to the extent that we either give into whatever they want, like in RI, or try to build a whole bunch more. If casinos were such a win for Connecticut and NJ, why do they have higher taxes?

These decisions are never made inside a vacuum. Massachusetts is not an island unto itself. I hope you consider these notions -- and reconsider your opinion.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 00:34:21 AM CST

Well then (6.00 / 2)

at least it will keep the money in the state.  I went to Foxwoods to see Stevie Wonder a week ago last Thursday and the roads leading up to the establishment were full of cars from Massachusetts and New Hampshire.  You have to admit that there is a consistent flow of Massachusetts money into CT that would be abated a bit by casinos in Massachusetts.

---

by: RegularJoe @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 05:33:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It doesn't keep the money in the state (6.00 / 1)

Choice 1: I spend $100 at a casino.  By that I mean I gamble until I lose $100, which won't take long.

Casino:
* some is taxed, that stays in MA
* some goes to employees, that stays in MA
* some is for B2B goods and services, of which some stays in MA and some leaves (ex: catering may be in state, slot machines and spare parts out of state)
* some goes for profits, which leaves MA

Local restaurant:
* some is taxed, that stays in MA
* some goes to employees, that stays in MA
* some is for B2B goods and services, of which some stays in MA and some leaves
* some goes for profits, which stays in MA

Buy me a new ($100!) TV:
* some is taxed, that stays in MA
* some goes to employees, that stays in MA
* some is for B2B goods and services -- primarily the TV itself -- and primarily leaves MA
* some goes for profits, which leaves MA because almost all TVs are purchased from a big box

---

At the end of the day, the assumption is that casino goers who go to CT will stay in MA and then MA "gets that money".  There will be some of that, sure.  But there will also be people who aren't going to that casino in CT and who spend their money in a MA casino instead of at a MA restaurant or shop.  Since casinos aren't locally owned, the profits from the casino are guaranteed to leave the state, unlike profits from local businesses.

It's not at all clear to me that the money in MA state and local coffers from direct taxes or from direct+indirect taxes will go up with a casino.  It's pretty clear to me that costs to gov't will go up.

---

by: stomv @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:40:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

But (0.00 / 0)

a great percentage stays in Massachusetts.  That is all I said.  If you buy a balsa wood airplane in a dime store all of the things you state still happen.  Is 7 11 a local store?  Dominoes?  What is the difference?  By your logic we should not have 7 11s or Dominos in this state because the profits leave the state.

---

by: RegularJoe @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 21:42:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No, it doesn't! (0.00 / 0)

Stomv makes the point far more eloquently than I could. I only want to add that there will be many more people in his latter category (locals spending money at the casino instead of the local economy) than the former.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 16:18:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]