4 ms·

another major effect of being in poverty is that it shortens your time-horizon; you seek what small pleasures you have access to because you are under constant

another major effect of being in poverty is that it shortens your time-horizon; you seek what small pleasures you have access to because you are under constant financial stress. It's inoptimal, but if it gives people a small reprieve from suffering then it's a worthy investment. Same goes for smoking; it's a terrible long-term decision but it gives people short term stress relief. Attempting to ban either just looks like the middle class imposing their values on the working class and calling it help. > In most cases, though, these people just didn’t get a very good education, and don’t know how to “just do the math” required to realize that the deal is bad, and that they’d end up with more money (usually far more) by putting each dollar they spend on lottery tickets into a savings account. You don't have to do the math yourself. The fact that the lottery is -EV is common knowledge (in the sociological sense). > Lotteries would not, and could not, exist without there being a large number of these people. It's apparent that poverty is a bad thing. It's not so apparent to me that banning painkillers because broken legs shouldn't exist is a good idea.

derefr 6y ago
> It's not so apparent to me that banning painkillers because broken legs shouldn't exist is a good idea. Not my argument. Lotteries are an irrational “opiate of the masses” to choose compared to other opiates of the masses. Lotteries, in practice — mostly because you can buy multiple lottery tickets per drawing, and some people really go in on that — are more negative-sum (i.e. more extractive on the part of their operators) than almost any other way to trade money for dopamine. (They’re actually worse than casinos — because casinos kick out gambling addicts, and there are only so many casinos that eventually you’ll be recognized at all of them. With lottery tickets, you can just visit every convenience store in a five-mile radius. Some people do.) It would be like if you were on the street with a broken leg, and a street drug dealer offered you the option to buy either morphine or krokodil[1] for the same price. They both do the same thing (strong analgesia, addiction) but one has far worse side-effects. Why, other than either ignorance to the costs, or the inability to rationally weigh costs and benefits, would someone choose to self-medicate with the krokodil over the morphine? [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/krokodil-the-drug-that-eats-junkies-2300787.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/krokodil-the...
- beaconstudios 6y ago
  If the issue is overconsumption then there are better ways to deal with that, the same way we deal with other addictions. But the core idea of lotteries is not broken in the same way that poker isn't. > Not my argument. Lotteries are an irrational “opiate of the masses” to choose compared to other opiates of the masses. Lotteries, in practice — mostly because you can buy multiple lottery tickets per drawing, and some people really go in on that — are more negative-sum (i.e. more extractive on the part of their operators) than almost any other way to trade money for dopamine. How do the people you are trying to help respond to these arguments? Are they readily convinced to go for these superior sources of dopamine? Human beings aren't utility maximising functions so often these issues are more complex than simple comparisons of utility estimates.

derefr 6y ago

> It's not so apparent to me that banning painkillers because broken legs shouldn't exist is a good idea. Not my argument. Lotteries are an irrational “opiate of the masses” to choose compared to other opiates of the masses. Lotteries, in practice — mostly because you can buy multiple lottery tickets per drawing, and some people really go in on that — are more negative-sum (i.e. more extractive on the part of their operators) than almost any other way to trade money for dopamine. (They’re actually worse than casinos — because casinos kick out gambling addicts, and there are only so many casinos that eventually you’ll be recognized at all of them. With lottery tickets, you can just visit every convenience store in a five-mile radius. Some people do.) It would be like if you were on the street with a broken leg, and a street drug dealer offered you the option to buy either morphine or krokodil[1] for the same price. They both do the same thing (strong analgesia, addiction) but one has far worse side-effects. Why, other than either ignorance to the costs, or the inability to rationally weigh costs and benefits, would someone choose to self-medicate with the krokodil over the morphine? [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/krokodil-the-drug-that-eats-junkies-2300787.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/krokodil-the...

beaconstudios 6y ago
If the issue is overconsumption then there are better ways to deal with that, the same way we deal with other addictions. But the core idea of lotteries is not broken in the same way that poker isn't. > Not my argument. Lotteries are an irrational “opiate of the masses” to choose compared to other opiates of the masses. Lotteries, in practice — mostly because you can buy multiple lottery tickets per drawing, and some people really go in on that — are more negative-sum (i.e. more extractive on the part of their operators) than almost any other way to trade money for dopamine. How do the people you are trying to help respond to these arguments? Are they readily convinced to go for these superior sources of dopamine? Human beings aren't utility maximising functions so often these issues are more complex than simple comparisons of utility estimates.