Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

psychreg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 92 posts

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#71

Post by ndiscussion »

kevinh wrote: post #51
awillen wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality is that a hypoallergenic-pet-only policy isn't all that useful. It's unfortunate for allergic people when dogs are allowed, but it's also potentially a boon to the company. Aside from the benefits of lowering stress, etc., there's also a substantial monetary benefit for people who would otherwise have to take their dogs to daycare or hire a walker for them. I was spending ~$7000/year on a walker in SF, so…

> Ultimately, each company has to make its own decision about whether to prioritize those who are allergic to pets or those who wish to bring pets in the office. There are costs and benefits to each. Ultimately, it's a question of whether they want to comply with the ADA or not when considering which to prioritize.

Oh? Who's covered... the people with allergies, or the people who need a dog to work? I wasn't aware. Do you have any evidence for this?

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#72

Post by homonculus1 »

malvosenior wrote: post #69
homonculus1 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The likelihood of a child becoming such a climate messiah is astronomically smaller than that of a mere additional exponentially-reproducing, exponentially-consuming carbon footprint. You're better off trying to impress eco-friendly memes on the offspring of people who insist on breeding no matter what. The notion of having kids to fight climate change is silly at best.

There are obviously many options between "climate messiah" and "exponentially-reproducing, exponentially-consuming carbon footprint". People can create value in multiple dimensions. Even if you only look through the lens of offspring's ability to impact climate, then having children is essential unless you think changing the climate can be done in a single generation (the current one).

But you having children is not essential. It's a given that the masses are plowing ahead with their insistence on having several children regardless, so a shortage of future generations, scientists, activists, etc. will not be the problem--at least not until the climate becomes the limiting factor!

Until then, the decision for fence-sitters is whether or not to shrink the window. Encouragement toward them should be in the direction of not to.

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#73

Post by homonculus1 »

malvosenior wrote: post #68
mikestew wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Could", yes. The overwhelming odds, however, are that they'll grow up to be upper-middle class consumers who don't do anything outstanding other than hoover up huge amounts of resources and make the problem worse.

Unless you're assuming the socioeconomic class of the original poster to be upper-middle class and that that will extend to their offspring, then you are incorrect. Most people are not upper-middle class, so the odds are against any random person being an upper-middle class consumer.

Most people don't comment on HN. It is an assumption, but not an unwarranted one.

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#74

Post by Raphmedia »

ndiscussion wrote: post #71
kevinh wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ultimately, each company has to make its own decision about whether to prioritize those who are allergic to pets or those who wish to bring pets in the office. There are costs and benefits to each. Ultimately, it's a question of whether they want to comply with the ADA or not when considering which to prioritize.

Oh? Who's covered... the people with allergies, or the people who need a dog to work? I wasn't aware. Do you have any evidence for this?

Both. However, here we are talking about pet animals and not service animals.

    Under Title III of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and virtually all state laws, a service animal is an animal that has been trained to perform work or tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability
and

    In both the ADA and Section 504, a person with a disability is someone who has a physical or mental impairment that seriously limits one or more major life activities, or who is regarded as having such impairments. Asthma and allergies are usually considered disabilities under the ADA

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#75

Post by malvosenior »

homonculus1 wrote: post #72
malvosenior wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are obviously many options between "climate messiah" and "exponentially-reproducing, exponentially-consuming carbon footprint". People can create value in multiple dimensions. Even if you only look through the lens of offspring's ability to impact climate, then having children is essential unless you think changing the climate can be done in a single generation (the current one).

But you having children is not essential. It's a given that the masses are plowing ahead with their insistence on having several children regardless, so a shortage of future generations, scientists, activists, etc. will not be the problem--at least not until the climate becomes the limiting factor! Until then, the decision for fence-sitters is whether or not to shrink the window. Encouragement toward them should be i…

People should not be making personal reproductive choices based on encouragement. It's no one's place to judge whether or not someone should have children.

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#76

Post by e40 »

xythian wrote: post #38
tombert wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We tried that for awhile at a previous job. It was fun at first, but there were two problems: 1) Dogs like to poop. A lot. Even with a responsible owner, if the dog runs around the office frequently, they would poop, and someone would step in it, and that is gross. 2) Dogs like to bark. Most dogs are fine, but occasionally there would be one that wouldn't shut up and get them all started. After a few months, they got…

Huh. I worked at an office with dogs for ~4 years and never experienced pooping or barking problems or heard rumors of such issues. The biggest problem we had were allergies. There was an eventual compromise with dogs only allowed in specific conference rooms that had air purifiers running.

Yeah, I have dog/cat allergies and it can be terrible, depending on the dog/cat.

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#77

Post by malvosenior »

homonculus1 wrote: post #73
malvosenior wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you're assuming the socioeconomic class of the original poster to be upper-middle class and that that will extend to their offspring, then you are incorrect. Most people are not upper-middle class, so the odds are against any random person being an upper-middle class consumer.

Most people don't comment on HN. It is an assumption, but not an unwarranted one.

There are many non upper-middle class people here so I would say it is an unwarranted assumption.

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#78

Post by mikestew »

malvosenior wrote: post #68
mikestew wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Could", yes. The overwhelming odds, however, are that they'll grow up to be upper-middle class consumers who don't do anything outstanding other than hoover up huge amounts of resources and make the problem worse.

Unless you're assuming the socioeconomic class of the original poster to be upper-middle class and that that will extend to their offspring, then you are incorrect. Most people are not upper-middle class, so the odds are against any random person being an upper-middle class consumer.

I assumed nothing. I used the word "odds". Probabilities, what have you. And if one is posting on HN, "odds are" you and everyone in your household consume a disproportionate amount of the world's resources. And if you'd like to drill further into an off-hand comment that might have taken a few liberties with the demographics of HN readers, then let's simplify it: your kid isn't going to cure cancer or fix global warming no matter who you are or your class status.

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#79

Post by awillen »

Raphmedia wrote: post #50
awillen wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality is that a hypoallergenic-pet-only policy isn't all that useful. It's unfortunate for allergic people when dogs are allowed, but it's also potentially a boon to the company. Aside from the benefits of lowering stress, etc., there's also a substantial monetary benefit for people who would otherwise have to take their dogs to daycare or hire a walker for them. I was spending ~$7000/year on a walker in SF, so…

> The reality is that a hypoallergenic-pet-only policy isn't all that useful. Why wouldn't it be useful? Pet allergies can trigger anaphylaxis which can result in death. Allergies to dogs and cats affect 10%–20% of the population[1]. That's a big chunk of the workforce you are cutting away from your company. Purchasing a hypoallergenic animal for the office's pet is simply being responsible. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.…

It's not about buying an office dog, it's about people bringing their own pets to work. I'm not denying that it affects a portion of the population - like I said, there's a tradeoff that companies have to make.

The anaphylaxis thing isn't a reasonable point at all, since people for whom that's the case will self select out of working at offices that have pets.

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#80

Post by pmiller2 »

I love my dog. I really do, and I'm sure she grants me some health and psychological benefits just for being around.

But, for all the benefits, she's still a multiple hundred dollar a month expense between food, vet bills, boarding when I want to go away on vacation and can't take her, dog walkers when necessary, etc. Being a good dog owner is expensive!

Then, there's also the fact that I'm a renter. My dog is 3, so, when you combine these two facts, that means I'm looking at up to ~10 years of housing problems, because the number of apartments that allow pets at all is maybe 10% of the total.

I've already decided that, if it came right down to it, if I need to move and my dog becomes an impediment, that I will need to find her another good home. But, as I am in a rent controlled, pets allowed apartment in a location that has a "just cause for eviction" law, I don't see that day coming any time soon.

TL;DR: Pet ownership isn't all benefits. It's expensive and also can bring housing problems.

Post reply on HN