Expanded Gambling
I voted against the Speaker’s expanded gambling bill that called for a total of 3,000 video slots at existing racetracks as well as two large scale casinos in the Commonwealth. Here is why.
Little evidence exists to support the claim that casinos are an effective approach to economic development. Harvard’s Rapport Institute (2005) found no long-term change in unemployment levels when casinos were built, nor did a study by Walker & Jackson (July 2007). This seems counterintuitive, but there are several good reasons why this is true.
Casinos attract workers from out of state, canceling out many of the job gains. Las Vegas currently has an unemployment rate of 13.8%. More than a thousand workers have been laid-off from the Connecticut casinos in recent years. Many of these experienced workers will be recruited by casino operators to work here.
Casinos cannibalize existing businesses. People only have so much money to spend – they can spend it at local businesses or at slot machines. Money spent at local restaurants and businesses sustain more jobs than money just gambled away. According to researchers, for every $1,000 spent at a casino; there is a $381 reduction in spending at other businesses located within 30 miles. (Grinolos 2004). In a sense, we are not creating jobs, just moving them around.
Finally, most large scale casinos are owned by investors who take their profits out of state. This is money lost to the local economy.
The gambling industry is predatory. Like big tobacco, it maximizes profits by addicting people to its products. The video slots of today have little in common with the mechanical one-armed bandits of yesterday. They are the most addictive gambling instruments ever devised – people get hooked five times faster than they do playing other games. Every aspect of these machines, from the ergonomics to the audio/visual feedback and speed of play are designed to enhance their addictive properties. In the past, table games accounted for most of a casino’s profits. Today at least 70% come from video slots.
Like other predators, the gambling industry preys on the most vulnerable. Low income citizens spend a much larger share of their income on gambling than do others. It is easy to see why. The addictive nature of video slots, according to Natasha Schull, Assistant Professor of Anthropology at MIT, offer “escape into a dissociative state of continuous flow, a kind of anesthesia from human concerns,… anything troubling about their life situation, physically, emotionally or socially – is blotted out.”
Like other predators, the gambling industry stalks its prey. Casinos monitor customers’ spending habits. They can trace 75% of their revenue back to individual gamblers. They use this information to pursue frequent gamblers with free gaming credits, drinks and hotel rooms. They push and prod casual gamblers into becoming problem gamblers, problem gamblers into becoming pathological gamblers, and pathological gamblers to ruin. They do this because it is profitable.
Massachusetts residents spend a lot of money at Connecticut casinos. Many site this as a reason to invite them here. But the cost of recapturing that money would come at a high cost. According to the National Gambling Impact Study commissioned by Congress, we would likely double the number of problem gamblers here - 140,000 new victims. That is a lot of families at high risk for domestic violence, bankruptcy, divorce and suicide. This is why the Massachusetts Council of Churches strongly opposed the bill.
I voted against expanded gambling in Massachusetts. In my view, the long-term costs far outweigh the short-term benefits. We can do better.
