Casino jobs study
Why is it that whenever a study shows magic benefits and no costs for casinos, it is always funded by an entity that stands to gain from them?
Sounds great until you get to this paragraph buried at the end:
A read of this study shows a lot of very obvious problems.
The premise of the study is that casino workers with less than a college education earn more and have better benefits than similarly educated workers in other industries. Here’s the obvious problem: No one is denying that casinos earn lots of money. Comparing workers in a highly profitable industry to the aggregate of all other workers is a stacked comparison. A more relevant comparison would be between casino/hotel workers and non-gaming resorts such as Disney. Comparing the pay and benefits of a hotel worker in the MGM Grand in Las Vegas to a Motel 6 in Corndog, Iowa is meaningless. I would maintain that if you compared uneducated casino workers to similarly educated workers in other highly successful companies you would get a very different result.
The study also includes a section that basically says that unionized casino workers in Las Vegas fare better than their non-unionized counterparts in Reno. Interesting but meaningless since the differing economies skew the results. This section stuck out like a sore pro-union thumb.
There is a section that concludes that Patrick’s commercial casino plan is wonderful when compared to Indian casinos in CT and NY. Well duh.
This study came off as a real rah-rah for Patrick’s casino legislation with pro-union overtones. The basic mechanism of comparing workers in a highly profitable industry to all other workers was bound to produce the overly rosy results. Coupled with the funding from construction industry interests, let’s just say I’m not convinced especially when, as usual, the socio-economic costs are completely ignored.
Themocracy
It sounds like Beacon Hill is preparing to introduce the next gambling bill.
What better way than having a pro-casino study available from one of our state universities.
There’s a shocker. A State-run school funds a graduate program in collectivism and they produce a report in favor of casinos. At least DeVille is getting his ducks in a row this time.
DeLeo has made his procasino stand very clear. Not sure at this time how much power he weilds to muscle support for the Govs obvious intentions to revisit building commercial casinos. Also don’t know the accuracy of polls that indicate that the majority of MA voters would approve gambling if it were brought to a referendum ballot vote. What info do you have on that?
Not much.
Last polls I saw showed little support especially when located in a person’s town.
In any event, casino’s aren’t a popularity contest – they are a serious public policy and social issue.
If the polls show little support, then perhaps a binding referendum question would put an end to MA casinos. I don’t trust the legislature because the tides turn easily on enough arm twisting.
As to any study on gambling paid for by special interests, their results should be viewed with much skepticism and the public should be made aware of who paid for them.
I suspect that keeping Massachusetts casino free will be an ongoing battle from a number of fronts. It therefore seems appropriate to keep the letter writing flowing to any and all who may be assistive or have the power to do something about it. The sustained effort seems worth it.
What a crock.
Shame on UMass Boston, they should know better.