(Casino Gambling) Isn't in the local news.

On May 9, 6:40 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

> Let me suggest that the tourist industry is also not dependable.

Obvious. But the casino industry is not the silver bullet for Hawaii.

"al Guacamole" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1210437601-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> On May 9, 6:40 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Let me suggest that the tourist industry is also not dependable.
>
> Obvious. But the casino industry is not the silver bullet for Hawaii.
>
>

Is there any industry that would be the silver bullet for Hawaii?

Here is something for you to think about.

1. Island people go to Vegas and Reno in such large numbers that the
casinos cater to the people from Hawaii. Is that "helping" the economy of
Hawaii, that these people go somewhere else to spend their money?

2. Casinos employ a whole lot of people. And the people who work for the
casinos make good money. How many good paying jobs would be created "if"
casinos were allowed to operate in Hawaii? How many other jobs would be
created just from businesses that service these casinos?

3. Would legalized gambling in Hawaii, help or hurt the tourism
industry in
Hawaii? Would more or less people come to Hawaii if there was gambling in
Hawaii?

4. If there was legalized gambling in Hawaii, wouldn't casinos be built in
Hawaii, and would that not create a whole lot of jobs....good paying jobs I
might add.

al Guacamole wrote:
> On May 9, 6:40 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Let me suggest that the tourist industry is also not dependable.
>
> Obvious. But the casino industry is not the silver bullet for Hawaii.
>
>

As If there is ANY "silver bullet". The success or failure of the State
(or, for that matter, the country) is no different in principal than
that of any investor. Diversification is key. Anytime you put all your
eggs in one basket, you risk losing it all with one misstep. Hawaii will
probably always be an attractive travel destination, but excluding
unrelated businesses is foolhardy.

You must also build a solid foundation...this begins with education.
More, and better education. Most importantly, for the state, you must
take steps to attract business...ALL business. How? What are the
obstacles to business in this state? High land costs. High Union Labor
costs. Taxes. Regulation....just for starters.

What if the state, that ultimately controls land use, took steps to make
large areas available for residential, light industry, office, and
especially mixed use so that small business owners could live right
where they work? Making large new areas available will lower the land
prices for everyone (which is exactly why they DON'T do this, in cahoots
with the Big 5), lowering the cost of doing business.

What if we eliminate Unions? As a group, union workers are less
productive than non-union counterparts. This, in conjunction with higher
wages and more benefits, compounds the overall expense to business,
driving up costs.

Taxes and Regulation go hand in hand...let's simplify this and shift
more of the responsibility BACK to the individuals where it belongs,
instead of government "protecting" every squeaking wheel that rolls by.
The government should focus on infrastructure and education. Let the
market self-regulate business.

Let me suggest that while it is true that unions require business to pay
hgiher wages, and while that does affect the decision for many
industries to avoid establishing a business in Hawaii (along with the fact that we are in the middle of a very big ocean), unions are not a big problem with casinos. they are money making machines, which can well afford to pay their workers what they pay them.

On May 11, 7:45 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> Let me suggest that while it is true that unions require business to
> pay
> hgiher wages, and while that does affect the decision for many
> industries to
> avoid establishing a business in Hawaii (along with the fact that we
> are in
> the middle of a very big ocean), unions are not a big problem with
> casinos.
> they are money making machines, which can well afford to pay their
> workers
> what they pay them.

Most of the new high tech startups in Hawaii are non-union. Don't know
of any that aren't, and why you would worry that the few workers that
are unionized in other industries would jeopardize a non-union shop.

Jerry.... companies founded in Hawaii must have a reason for being
here. The answer is obvious when you ask their founders. If the
company can innovate and create marketable products, it still does
well here as well as anywhere else.

Well, yes if they are successful they are happy as clams.

On May 13, 7:25=A0am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message

>> Except when the economy goes sour. Then casinos have to lay off many
>> of their employees.
>
> "If" the economy sours "people" do get laid off. =A0It does not
> matter if =
they
> are working for a casino or they are working for some other business

Casino gambling is no better than any other kind of business. It's no
silver bullet for Hawaii. Proponents promise more than reality.

"al Guacamole" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1210732802-sch@news.lava.net...

On May 13, 7:25 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message

>> Except when the economy goes sour. Then casinos have to lay off many
>> of their employees.
>
> "If" the economy sours "people" do get laid off. It does not
> matter if they
> are working for a casino or they are working for some other business

Casino gambling is no better than any other kind of business. It's no
silver bullet for Hawaii. Proponents promise more than reality.

Okay, if it is not a silver bullet, what is the silver bullet?

"al Guacamole" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1210732805-sch@news.lava.net...

On May 13, 7:25 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>> Jerry.... companies founded in Hawaii must have a reason for being
>> here. The answer is obvious when you ask their founders. If the
>> company can innovate and create marketable products, it still does
>> well here as well as anywhere else.
>
> Well, yes if they are successful they are happy as clams.

Success depends more on what you sell, how well you serve, than on
business problems. So why worry about disincentives when the
incentives and execution of a good business plan are more important.

No, success means you stay in business and don't go broke trying to stay in
business.