|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 21, 2018 10:07:02 GMT -5
Tuesday's Mega-Millions jackpot is estimated to hit $1.6 billion. As bad as I think the regular state lotteries are--with $3-$10 million jackpots--these "Mega" lotteries are even worse. Lotteries--as a matter of course--target the most vulnerable people in society: people living on fixed incomes, seniors, people on the verge of being destitute, people who actually are destitute, and so on. Winning the lottery is a pipe dream, it really is. Yet people plop down dollar after dollar in the hopes that somehow their prayers will be answered. And just an fyi, the chance of winning the Mega Millions jackpot is 1 in 302 million. The chance of being struck by lightning in a given year--in the US--is 1 in 700,000. The typical odds on a slot machine clock in at about 1 in 200,000 to 1 in 1,000,000. Yet, people are going to line up in droves to play this lottery, some who don't even usually play, apparently because it somehow makes sense to play now because the jackpot is so big (which cracks me up; they weren't willing to risk $2 when the jackpot was only $300 million or so). All of this would be fine, I guess, since people are free to make their own choices, but the fact that this is run by governments should, I think, give everyone pause. Almost everyone who plays the lottery loses more money than they win. End of story. The government shouldn't be taking money from people who can't afford to lose it. /rant |
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Oct 21, 2018 11:27:41 GMT -5
Well, the government isn't really taking money -- it's accepting money. And a lot of people love to dream. Have you ever played the "What would I do with my lottery winnings?" game? I've never played this lottery, but I told my husband yesterday we should try it for fun. But I didn't even know how or where to get tickets, LOL.
I do wish there'd be a way to have more winners of less money. 100K can really help a household, and there's a lot of 100K in 1.6 billion.
|
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Oct 21, 2018 16:00:58 GMT -5
I get your point, Rob, but I don't have a great problem with it. It's my understanding that the money goes (mainly) to education, and for myself I don't mind dropping an extra few bucks in that coffer. And c.e. is right, it IS fun to play that game. Picking out my $40 million Paris apartment gives me hours (OK, not quite) of entertainment.
And I'm OK with giving people a few hours or days of (ridiculous) wishful thinking. After all, you cannot deny that SOMEone wins...
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 21, 2018 16:46:17 GMT -5
Well again, States advertise the lotteries, and most of the advertising is aimed at groups who can't really afford to throw money away. I find that deeply wrong-headed, given that job numero uno of government is protect the citizenry. As to the money going to education: abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92598&page=1I don't have a problem with gambling. I just don't think the state should be playing the role of the house. And I certainly don't think it should be encouraging people to throw their money away, especially when so many of those people don't have the necessary discretionary income to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by Don on Oct 21, 2018 18:08:30 GMT -5
I'm with Rob on this one. Lotteries are for suckers, but that's up to the individual. OTOH, I find state-run lotteries repugnant on a moral level. The state should have a higher responsibility to its citizenry. If anything, they should educate against such wasteful stupidity, not encourage it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 21, 2018 18:12:17 GMT -5
Lotteries--as a matter of course--target the most vulnerable people in society: people living on fixed incomes, seniors, people on the verge of being destitute, people who actually are destitute, and so on. Winning the lottery is a pipe dream, it really is. Yet people plop down dollar after dollar in the hopes that somehow their prayers will be answered. Because all those saved dollars could make them not poor and destitute anymore? Come on. A gambling addiction is a problem, to be sure, but I disagree that lotteries "target" vulnerable people anymore than the availability of drugs or alcohol "target" people who end up abusing them. As a matter of course any lottery or gambling establishment will be a bane to a gambling addict. Not a reason to outlaw it and/or refrain from using it as a fundraising tool (though I will agree that it may not work in the scheme of public funding and budgets being what they are). On a broader scale, people "waste" money on any number of things. Lotteries and gambling are a cheap thrill and/or appeal to people who don't understand (or ignore) statistical probability.... regardless of their economic situation. I know some very well off folks who gamble. Rich people waste a whole lot more money than poor people. And imo it's much more of a waste because of what that kind of money could do -- as opposed to this fake outrage because of what $20 bucks of scratch offs could do if only that poor person wouldn't buy them every week. I think the angst over lotteries targeting the poor is one of those conservative mantras akin to lifting oneself up by one's own bootstraps. It really needs to die. |
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 21, 2018 18:54:29 GMT -5
I didn't know it was a "conservative mantra" at all. That's news to me. But the fact of the matter is that the people running these lotteries happily sell distributorships in areas that are predominantly lower income. And they run ads like this: www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=29&v=F2Nndj_9wyAAgain, this is the state--the government--telling people that playing the lottery is what they should do. And this applies to everyone, to be sure: the state shouldn't be telling anyone to throw their money away on lottery tickets. But imo, it especially shouldn't be sending that message to people who can't afford it. |
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 21, 2018 19:38:13 GMT -5
I didn't know it was a "conservative mantra" at all. That's news to me. *shrug* It's a common refrain around these parts and it sounded like you were making it - that poor/destitute people should save their "dollars" and not play the lottery, the subtext being this is why they're poor and/or not doing this will save them from poverty and destitution. Essentially it's their own fault they're poor and their scratch off purchases are proof. Wait, so you're talking about construction workers now? Or, "lower" income, as opposed to poor/destitute? Seems like shifting the goal posts. My response is, so what? If people on lower incomes want to buy lotto tickets (and come on, for most people it's maybe $5 or $10 a week, right? What else should they be doing with $10/week in your opinion?) big fucking deal. I don't get the angst. It seems purely judgmental and lacking any practical application. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Oct 21, 2018 20:07:36 GMT -5
I think the angst over lotteries targeting the poor is one of those conservative mantras akin to lifting oneself up by one's own bootstraps. It really needs to die. Yeah, if a poor person won the Mega Millions, they'd be getting out of poverty via a government program, and that would be a damn outrage.  No, the opposite. It's the state's fault. I'm with Rob on this one. The fact is, there are people who really do misunderstand the chances of winning. You support public education, right? And you don't have a problem with teaching probability theory in math class, right? Well, these lotto ads are basically telling people to disregard what would be taught about probability in a decent math class. To disregard all of that in favor of a lucky feeling, because the next winner could be you. In any case, don't you think there's a fair argument to be made that this is essentially a regressive program that funds education primarily through lower-income citizens? That's what it looks like to me, anyway. I'd rather just fund education via income taxes. |
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 21, 2018 20:11:27 GMT -5
I don't know what to tell you, Christine. You seem to be purposefully missing the points I'm making, almost entirely.
I'm not shifting any goalposts. You're imagining that I'm saying things that's I'm not saying and ignoring what I am actually saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 21, 2018 20:33:53 GMT -5
I think the angst over lotteries targeting the poor is one of those conservative mantras akin to lifting oneself up by one's own bootstraps. It really needs to die. Yeah, if a poor person won the Mega Millions, they'd be getting out of poverty via a government program, and that would be a damn outrage. Heh.  People misunderstand all sorts of things. People believe all sorts of things. I take your point that, perhaps, government shouldn't encourage wishful thinking, but then again, the lottery is a game, and someone *does* win (to go back to what c.e. was saying, it's fun to hope/wish). I wonder if we're assuming too much about people who play these games, that they "believe" more than we do? They're not a monolith, either. Well, yes. Just to note, in Florida, we don't have those. We have sales taxes, also regressive, much more so. And we have property taxes, which are also not really equitable in the grand scheme. But I didn't take this thread to be a discussion of the most equitable means of government funding. It's not that I think the lottery is a good thing. I'm rather ambivalent to it, from the standpoint that people will find all kinds of wasteful things to spend $5 or $10 a week on, so why not have it go to public education? (If it does.) I'm not for it or against it. I'm just not buying into the idea that it's exacerbating poverty, promoting gambling that would not otherwise occur, and/or a pox on the government for taking advantage of stupid people, or whatever it is rob is claiming that apparently I don't understand. <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="4.900000000000006" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38000000000011px; height: 4.900000000000006px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_73324551" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="4.900000000000006" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 4.9px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1599px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_89091823" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="4.900000000000006" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 4.9px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 185px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_32701761" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="4.900000000000006" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 4.9px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1599px; top: 185px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_74381826" scrolling="no"></iframe> |
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Oct 21, 2018 21:22:25 GMT -5
I take your point that, perhaps, government shouldn't encourage wishful thinking Well, it's more than just that. I'm also saying the government shouldn't encourage wishful thinking while also, at the same time, discouraging it. At the very least, they should pick a side and be consistent. I don't know that it promotes gambling that wouldn't otherwise occur, but I'm not sure that matters so much. I mean, I realize that people will always smoke cigarettes no matter what, but I still don't want the state to sell cigarettes and encourage people to buy them. Maybe more on point: people will always shell out money for faith healers, but I don't want the state to offer faith healing as part of a government healthcare program, and sell access to it for $1 or $2, and promote it on the grounds that, hey, it's only $1 or $2 and there's an outside chance it could be effective. And as Rob noted, lotteries offer particularly long odds, compared to other forms of gambling. Slot machines give way better odds. So would betting on horse racing and other similar things. |
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 21, 2018 22:17:05 GMT -5
Okay so cigarettes are overtly harmful; smoking them can kill you. Faith healing is a scam; believing in it and eschewing medical treatment could kill you. But buying $10 worth of tickets each week is not going to kill you. Or bankrupt you. Or even reduce the quality of your life in any discernible way, as far as I can tell.
I get that some people don't grasp the incredibly long odds of winning the lottery. If everyone truly grasped it, probably no one would play. I think it's a game, and a wish and a hope for people. I think most people understand, at least, that it's a long shot. Maybe they don't grok how long, but they know it's pretty long.
Again, I'm not pro-lottery, but I'm not seeing the huge problem, other than a sort of nebulous "principle" which no one seems to be able to, or want to, explain in terms of the practical benefit of effectively saving (e.g.) $10/week. That's $520/year. That's $5,200 over ten years. That's $52,000 in a hundred years. Hopefully you get the point.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Oct 22, 2018 1:16:53 GMT -5
Okay so cigarettes are overtly harmful; smoking them can kill you. Faith healing is a scam; believing in it and eschewing medical treatment could kill you. But buying $10 worth of tickets each week is not going to kill you. Or bankrupt you. Or even reduce the quality of your life in any discernible way, as far as I can tell. Well, I think state lotteries are also a scam. Everything about them is a scam, from the advertising and slogans, to the way they're falsely touted as boons for education, so that well-meaning people will get duped into feeling good about them. Did you ever see the John Oliver segment on state lotteries? www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-netuhHAHe's spot-on, IMO. Obviously it's understandable to want to support education. And obviously it's understandable to want to win millions of dollars, especially if you're struggling. But the whole thing is set up to be predatory, not to actually help people. And sure, I agree $10 a week might not kill you. But it can absolutely hurt people in discernible ways. $10 a week for someone making $10,000 a year would be about 5 percent of their income, right? If that's just peanuts, why don't we have a 5 percent income tax on people making $10,000 a year? Well, for one thing, I think many would agree that 5 percent can be tough when you're on a low income, much tougher than 20 percent would be for someone making more money. And then, of course, there's the people who spend way more than $10 a week on this stuff, as Oliver noted. |
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Oct 22, 2018 3:07:14 GMT -5
I kind of see Christine's point. I think many of the stories that claim that lotteries "prey on the poor" are mawkish and infantilizing tripe. The insinuation seems to always be that "poor people and minorities" (isn't it interesting how those stories seem to always lump both of those groups together?) are too stupid or addicted or for whatever reason lack the autonomy to make their own decisions.
"We need to protect/save Those PeopleTM from themselves!" Won't someone think of the children?!
The entire thing smacks of "soft bigotry of low expectations."
One of the lamest arguments that I've heard (and one that clearly lacks any semblance of critical thinking) to support this claim is that a large percentage of tickets are bought by poor people. That's about as shocking to me as saying that most food is bought by hungry people. What motivation would upper class and upper middle class people have to buy lottery tickets? And most tickets are bought by poor people in low income neighborhoods. Why, yes, because poor people tend to live in urban areas with many bodegas and gas stations (the main sellers of lottery tickets) within walking distance whereas people of greater financial means tend to live in the suburbs, miles away from the nearest gas station or bodega. It's not rocket science.
I don't think that they prey on poor people any more than I think Girl Scout Cookies prey on overweight people.
Most people on the planet suck at understanding probability and statistics. Not much can be done to change that. Even telling people the shitty odds doesn't deter the vast majority of them. People make their own decisions even if those decisions are stupid and harmful to them. I read somewhere that the average poor person who buys lottery tickets spends around $500 to $600 a year on them. That's roughly $11 a week, close to what Micheal mentioned. How much do they also spend on booze? On cigarettes? Probably a lot more than they spend on lottery tickets. Which is worse for them? Guess it depends on your perspective. And, which one are people blaming for the plight of the poor and is Jon Oliver making preachy videos about? I wonder why the greater of two/three evils are ignored and lottery tickets are singled out for condemnation. Low hanging fruit, I suppose?
I agree that state-run lotteries are poorly managed, often shady in how they advertise, and even shadier in what they do with the money. I also agree that governments need to be held more accountable for the way they manage them. And I agree that there exists a small percentage of people (poor or otherwise) who can develop a gambling addiction from lotteries and that perhaps more needs to be done to protect them, but I have no idea what the solution is and I've never heard a good suggestion for what we can do in that regard. If anyone's got a good solution that protects lower income lottery players but also doesn't violate their individual agency and autonomy, I'm all ears.
For the ones to which such claims about addiction and poor financial choices apply, those things would still be true even if they didn't play the lottery, and I have little doubt that their financial situations would be any different without the lottery. If they didn't blow that $11/week on a lottery ticket, there's a good chance it'd be wasted on something else that the critics would deem to be a poor decision (extra 6-pack a week, perhaps).
For the most part, no matter what anyone does, people are going to buy these tickets anyway. They freely make that choice. They voluntarily enter into that business transaction. To me, it comes across as a bit superior and elitist when I hear arguments about how "Those PeopleTM" aren't smart enough or don't understand math well enough to realize that they're hurting themselves financially and that "we" need to "do something" to "protect" them.
It's not like if all lottery ticket sales were halted tomorrow that poorer people would suddenly start making better financial decisions and pull themselves out of poverty by their bootstraps. It's also not a tax and, if it were, I would be against it. To me, that is also a dumb argument.
Again, they're freely choosing to spend their money on these items. I think it's dumb, I think they're hurting themselves and their families, and I wish they wouldn't do it. But, it's not for us to decide what they should do with their own money, even if they are making dumb choices. And to assume that they're doing so because they have low IQs and suck at math is pretty fucking elitist.
Do you really want the government deciding how people should spend their money? If so, the Democratic Socialists are looking for new recruits.
|
|
