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

81–90 of 92 posts

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#81

Post by ken »

tombert wrote: post #26
Ididntdothis wrote: post #2

For a while I worked at a place where they allowed dogs in the office. It’s probably not for everyone it but I personally felt this have the workplace a very nice touch and made it much more humane.

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…

Sounds like yet another reason to have private offices.

Like dogs, some people just don't shut up, and once two people are talking, the rest often don't see much reason to stay quiet, since the silence has already been broken.

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#82

Post by pmiller2 »

Raphmedia wrote: post #74
ndiscussion wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That raises an interesting question: suppose a business has one employee who needs a service dog and another who is allergic to dogs. Both individuals can be accomodated individually, but there is no realistic way to accommodate both without creating "undue hardship" to the business. Who wins priority?

This may be an unrealistic scenario, but it's at least an interesting hypothetical.

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#83

Post by Raphmedia »

awillen wrote: post #79
Raphmedia wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> since people for whom that's the case will self select out of working at offices that have pets.

Which is exactly my point. In my opinion, it is a waste to exclude 10% to 20% of the workforce to entertain the few people who really want to bring pets to the office.

There's also the important to mention fact that adult-onset allergies exist. Allergies can appear suddenly and you would end up with an employee who needs to leave the company for medical reason.

Some people might not be made aware of the presence of animals until it's too late to turn back.

This has happened to me in the past. I only was made aware of the presence of a dog late in the hiring process. They had me tour the office and it's only when the dog randomly passed by that they told me "and this is [dog name] our office dog".

Suffice to say I'm not working there - and dogs don't even trigger death inducing symptoms for me (cats however do). I may have skewed perceptions of my own value, but I think it is their loss.

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#84

Post by Ididntdothis »

world32 wrote: post #63
Ididntdothis wrote: post #2

For a while I worked at a place where they allowed dogs in the office. It’s probably not for everyone it but I personally felt this have the workplace a very nice touch and made it much more humane.

I love dogs and have one myself, but I don't think this is always a good idea. Maybe bring your dog in once a week or something like that but every day is too much. Some people have allergies, some dogs are poorly trained etc.

Once a week would already be nice. How about bring your dog day once a week? Then add a “no meetings” once a week and the workplace would already be much better.

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#85

Post by EForEndeavour »

malvosenior wrote: post #75
homonculus1 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And there we have the problem: collectively, we know we'd be better off with a lower birthrate, but it's unthinkable to infringe on individuals' right to reproduce.

Genes that predispose people toward selfless, bigger-picture thinking will snuff themselves out while genes that promote selfishness proliferate.

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#86

Post by malvosenior »

EForEndeavour wrote: post #85
malvosenior wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And there we have the problem: collectively, we know we'd be better off with a lower birthrate, but it's unthinkable to infringe on individuals' right to reproduce. Genes that predispose people toward selfless, bigger-picture thinking will snuff themselves out while genes that promote selfishness proliferate.

Low birthrates cause many problems, look at Japan. They have a massive labor shortage and a ballooning elderly population with not enough people to take care of them.

I don't think it's clear at all that a lower birthrate is a good thing.

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#87

Post by thedaemon »

Raphmedia wrote: post #61
sokoloff wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the office pet, it's many people's family pet that this policy targets allowing. People are realistically not going to replace a beloved family pet in order to be able to bring them to work.

In this case, the responsible solution would be to provide a room where animals would be restricted, such as an indoor dog-park ventilated to the outside. The only time I saw animals roaming freely in an office was the office pet and those should be hypoallergenic.

Or restrict you to a particular room or area. That's the same difference except it makes more sense to me, since you are one of the rare people that are allergic to a common household pet.

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#88

Post by EForEndeavour »

malvosenior wrote: post #86
EForEndeavour wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And there we have the problem: collectively, we know we'd be better off with a lower birthrate, but it's unthinkable to infringe on individuals' right to reproduce. Genes that predispose people toward selfless, bigger-picture thinking will snuff themselves out while genes that promote selfishness proliferate.

Low birthrates cause many problems, look at Japan. They have a massive labor shortage and a ballooning elderly population with not enough people to take care of them. I don't think it's clear at all that a lower birthrate is a good thing.

Japan is a bit of an extreme example. A manageably low(er) global birth rate would be better for the climate, among other things.

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#89

Post by malvosenior »

EForEndeavour wrote: post #88
malvosenior wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Low birthrates cause many problems, look at Japan. They have a massive labor shortage and a ballooning elderly population with not enough people to take care of them. I don't think it's clear at all that a lower birthrate is a good thing.

Japan is a bit of an extreme example. A manageably low(er) global birth rate would be better for the climate, among other things.

Japan isn’t that different from most other first world countries:

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/total-fertility-r...

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#90

Post by EForEndeavour »

malvosenior wrote: post #89
EForEndeavour wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Japan is a bit of an extreme example. A manageably low(er) global birth rate would be better for the climate, among other things.

Japan isn’t that different from most other first world countries: http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/total-fertility-r...

Japan is indisputably a demographic outlier. It's the oldest country, meaning even without having the absolute lowest birthrate, its population poised to shrink at one of the fastest rates on earth. Combined with its conservative immigration, low birth rate is only part of the picture.
Post reply on HN