IYO...are pets a luxury item?

[Dancing Fire]

 

[TravelingGal]

I don't own one, so take this with a grain of salt...but yes, I think they are. Although I'm sure people will have an issue with them being called an "item."

Even if you were not to pay for the pet, the health/upkeep of the pet costs money. And you also need the luxury of the extra time the pet the love and attention it needs (walking a dog, for example.) And if you want to go away for a vacation, you need to find a place that will take care of the pet, and that can cost money too.

I simply cannot afford to have a pet!

 

[CUSO]

They are not items, they are family.

 

[soocool]

Well, I consider pets priceless.

They are usually the first ones to greet you when you come home (cats and dogs), they give you unconditional love, stay with you no matter what, they do not judge you, they are your best friend, they keep you warm when it is freezing outside, they give you an excuse to exercise by having to walk and/or play with them. I guess all that for the cost of food, treats, toys, medical care is cheap in comparison to what I get in return.

 

[chemgirl]

Yes, definitely.

I think new pets are luxury items. A pet shouldn't be purchased unless the owner is financially capable of caring for it, paying for vet visits etc. If a person's income doesn't allow for these expenses, then I think they shouldn't buy a pet.

On the other hand, if somebody already has a pet, I don't think they should just get rid of it if finances are tight. They made the commitment and they need to make sacrifices in their day to day lives in order to make it work.

Hmmm, by this definition, I think I might consider new babies a luxury item...oh the controversy.

ETA: I agree that the word "item" doesn't fit here, but I think that people are priviledged to have them in their lives and they are a luxury.

 

[TravelingGal]

Well, I consider pets priceless.

They are usually the first ones to greet you when you come home (cats and dogs), they give you unconditional love, stay with you no matter what, they do not judge you, they are your best friend, they keep you warm when it is freezing outside, they give you an excuse to exercise by having to walk and/or play with them. I guess all that for the cost of food, treats, toys, medical care is cheap in comparison to what I get in return.

socoool, but we're not talking ROI here. Generally, it is a "luxury" to have a pet?

 

[soocool]

Well, I consider pets priceless.

They are usually the first ones to greet you when you come home (cats and dogs), they give you unconditional love, stay with you no matter what, they do not judge you, they are your best friend, they keep you warm when it is freezing outside, they give you an excuse to exercise by having to walk and/or play with them. I guess all that for the cost of food, treats, toys, medical care is cheap in comparison to what I get in return.

socoool, but we're not talking ROI here. Generally, it is a "luxury" to have a pet?

Then I guess it is a luxury to have kids, because they are much much more expensive!

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Pets aren't material objects.

The phrasing of this question is slightly odd.

 

[TravelingGal]

Yes, definitely.

I think new pets are luxury items. A pet shouldn't be purchased unless the owner is financially capable of caring for it, paying for vet visits etc. If a person's income doesn't allow for these expenses, then I think they shouldn't buy a pet.

On the other hand, if somebody already has a pet, I don't think they should just get rid of it if finances are tight. They made the commitment and they need to make sacrifices in their day to day lives in order to make it work.

Hmmm, by this definition, I think I might consider new babies a luxury item...oh the controversy.

I could buy that (no pun intended). No one these days really NEEDS a child (unlike the more olden days where you needed the hands!), like they don't NEED a pet. However, biological drive compels many people to have children. Emotional drive too (which also drives people to get pets).

With children, there is assistance when it comes to health. There's welfare, etc. I can see why in order to raise children by my upper-middle class standards it seems like a luxury, but people can get help from the govt. Pets? As far as I know, it's up to you to sustain them?

 

[Italiahaircolor]

Pets are family.

 

[Haven]

Well, I consider pets priceless.

They are usually the first ones to greet you when you come home (cats and dogs), they give you unconditional love, stay with you no matter what, they do not judge you, they are your best friend, they keep you warm when it is freezing outside, they give you an excuse to exercise by having to walk and/or play with them. I guess all that for the cost of food, treats, toys, medical care is cheap in comparison to what I get in return.

I agree! I love waking up with to find myself pinned down by five little (and not so little) furballs. And our pups definitely keep us active!

I do think pets are a luxury item to the extent that they are costly and require care. I think there are many irresponsible pet owners who don't care for their pets as well as they should, and it breaks my heart. Perhaps if people thought of them as luxury items that require constant care (and when I say care I'm talking about training, exercise, and balanced diets; not cutesy sweaters, cuddles, and treats) our pets would be better off because only those who are truly prepared to care for them would adopt. I see people who take better care of their cars than their pets, it's heartbreaking.

ETA: I suppose we could say that some people take better care of their cars than their children, too. I do think children are not a luxury item, because we are biologically compelled to reproduce. DH and I have been talking about kids, and he actually keeps on telling me that it's a luxury to have four children, which is the number I'd like to have. (He also says it's irresponsible because of overpopulation and diminishing resources.) He wants two, I want four, and he's telling me it's a luxury to have more than two. Convenient argument, I say.

 

[chemgirl]

Yes, definitely.

I think new pets are luxury items. A pet shouldn't be purchased unless the owner is financially capable of caring for it, paying for vet visits etc. If a person's income doesn't allow for these expenses, then I think they shouldn't buy a pet.

On the other hand, if somebody already has a pet, I don't think they should just get rid of it if finances are tight. They made the commitment and they need to make sacrifices in their day to day lives in order to make it work.

Hmmm, by this definition, I think I might consider new babies a luxury item...oh the controversy.

I could buy that (no pun intended). No one these days really NEEDS a child (unlike the more olden days where you needed the hands!), like they don't NEED a pet. However, biological drive compels many people to have children. Emotional drive too (which also drives people to get pets).

With children, there is assistance when it comes to health. There's welfare, etc. I can see why in order to raise children by my upper-middle class standards it seems like a luxury, but people can get help from the govt. Pets? As far as I know, it's up to you to sustain them?

I see your points. I was joking more than anything.

Actually in my province, people on wellfare are given a pet allowance. I don't know how much it is, but my old neighbour would get cats and then leave them to roam the neighbourhood so she could collect it She told me about her great plan while I was picking up the mail. I was hard not to be rude.

 

[that_someone_special]

I have a beef that people think that just because they think they can afford the $20 adoption fee on a cat, it makes them eligible to have an animal. Animals need love, YES, but they also need shots, food and sometimes emergency services... not to mention getting fixed.

I've known a lot of people like that. Makes me angry.

 

[trillionaire]

Weird question.

You don't need pets, so I guess you could say that.

You also don't need kids, so that could be construed as a luxury as well.

Is anything more than subsistence considered luxury? I think not, so I wouldn't catagorize them as a luxury. I think of it more as family formation, with everyone creating the type of family that they want, with human babies and/or fur babies.

Our dog really, very literally, completes our family unit. We are so lucky to have her, and she is quite a bit less than a child would ever be. I would consider a child far more of a luxury, because the dog has little impact on our budget or lifestyle. Her food is less than $10/wk. I pay $10/day to park for work.

 

[chemgirl]

I have a beef that people think that just because they think they can afford the $20 adoption fee on a cat, it makes them eligible to have an animal. Animals need love, YES, but they also need shots, food and sometimes emergency services... not to mention getting fixed.

I've known a lot of people like that. Makes me angry.

Exactly! Emergency services and checkups are important. This month alone I've payed over $400 on diagnostic tests for two of my three cats. One developed a cough out of the blue ($80 to be told to watch her and report back in two weeks) and the other has a bladder infection ($120x3 because it appears to be resistant to antibiotics and she is going in for her third urinalisis tomorrow morning). If either of these conditions develop in to something more serious (crossing my fingers that they don't), I'll be paying a lot more than this to treat them.

I went in to pet ownership knowing that this can happen. I accept it and I don't mind at all. They deserve the best care available.

IMHO, A pet is a luxury in the sense that you don't "need" one and it is a potentially large financial obligation.

 

[elrohwen]

IMO, yes, they are. I don't think anyone has a "right" to own an animal unless they are prepared to feed and take care of the animal in the manner the animal requires.

I frequent some pet forums and there are many people who don't have a stable income and are struggling to get by (or are young and don't have an income, with parents who refuse to pay for vet care of any kind), but who have 5 pets. The pets get low quality food and no vet care even if required, because the person can't afford it. In my eyes, if you're not prepared to pay for what the animal needs, you just shouldn't get it. And if you let your kid get a pet, you should be prepared to pay for what that animal needs - not assume that it will never need vet care or that your 12 year old will be able to come up with the money when that happens.

I know things happen and people lose their jobs - I understand that and applaud those people for continuing their commitment to their pet when times are tough. In the cases I'm talking about people who have never had a stable financial situation choose to continue getting more pets just because they want to - even if they can't afford to care for them.

 

[thethein11]

Totally agree with TravelingGal. I am one of those people who takes good care of their vehicle but I believe that I will carry that on to the way I would care for a pet or child if I had either.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Well, I consider pets priceless.

They are usually the first ones to greet you when you come home (cats and dogs), they give you unconditional love, stay with you no matter what, they do not judge you, they are your best friend, they keep you warm when it is freezing outside, they give you an excuse to exercise by having to walk and/or play with them. I guess all that for the cost of food, treats, toys, medical care is cheap in comparison to what I get in return.

I agree! I love waking up with to find myself pinned down by five little (and not so little) furballs. And our pups definitely keep us active!

I do think pets are a luxury item to the extent that they are costly and require care. I think there are many irresponsible pet owners who don't care for their pets as well as they should, and it breaks my heart. Perhaps if people thought of them as luxury items that require constant care (and when I say care I'm talking about training, exercise, and balanced diets; not cutesy sweaters, cuddles, and treats) our pets would be better off because only those who are truly prepared to care for them would adopt. I see people who take better care of their cars than their pets, it's heartbreaking.

ETA: I suppose we could say that some people take better care of their cars than their children, too. I do think children are not a luxury item, because we are biologically compelled to reproduce. DH and I have been talking about kids, and he actually keeps on telling me that it's a luxury to have four children, which is the number I'd like to have. (He also says it's irresponsible because of overpopulation and diminishing resources.) He wants two, I want four, and he's telling me it's a luxury to have more than two. Convenient argument, I say.

A friend of mine has three kids (wanted four but had a rough 3rd pregnancy). It's interesting in that she and her DH, who makes a lot of $ in a corporate job, are much more careful with how they go about clothes, etc. All consignment clothes, garage sales, etc., which most of my friends with 2 or less kids do not do.

My cat has hand-me-down cat-food bowls. lol

 

[Pandora II]

IMHO pets and children are both luxuries and I don't think it's responsible to have either unless you can afford to take care of them to a suitable degree - ie afford basics of housing, heat, food, medical care.

Won't stop people and welfare picks up where personal responsibility leaves off - agree unseen circumstances can force very responsible people into this situation.

My parents wouldn't allow us to have pets until we could afford the vet/food bills on our own - we had family pets till then. I thought very hard before getting my pythons.

 

[violet3]

Well, I consider pets priceless.

They are usually the first ones to greet you when you come home (cats and dogs), they give you unconditional love, stay with you no matter what, they do not judge you, they are your best friend, they keep you warm when it is freezing outside, they give you an excuse to exercise by having to walk and/or play with them. I guess all that for the cost of food, treats, toys, medical care is cheap in comparison to what I get in return.

socoool, but we're not talking ROI here. Generally, it is a "luxury" to have a pet?

Then I guess it is a luxury to have kids, because they are much much more expensive! [/quote]


Agreed. I think having pets is as much of a luxury as having children. Having either one is not a necessity to survive, which i guess by definition makes it a luxury. My husband and I are not financially ready/able to have children right now, because I would have to quit one of my jobs (at least) - but I don't have to quit any of my jobs to have a snuggly friend

Things that are not a luxury = food and shelter and warm clothing.

 

[TooPatient]

I don't know if I'd call them a "luxury item" but they are certainly NOT a basic necessity that everyone must have. I do think people need to really consider the long-term needs of an animal (or child for that matter) before they add one (or another one) to their family.

FI and I have 2 cats and 2 dogs. (If you remember, the 2nd dog wasn't exactly planned). With each addition, we've considered the increased expenses of food/toys/medical/etc as well as the time involved. We aren't "rich" by any means -- in fact we have some months where funds are really tight BUT we provide for our animals and cut whatever we have to from our other expenses to make sure they get the care they need.

food alone is about $120/month
chew treats, training supplies adds another $30/month
grooming (nail trims, anal gland cleaning) is about $30/month

Most months we don't have vet bills but then there are times where we have a couple of animals sick at the same time -- just recently we had over $2000 in vet bills in one month
One of our cats has asthma. Not sure yet what the price/month will work out to be (depends on how much she needs the inhaler) but we are looking at having up to $200/month for inhalers (plus additional vet visits, etc)

+ toys
+ boarding/sitting when we're gone (we aren't gone much but quality care is important when we are)
+ misc. supplies (new beds, brushes, tooth brushes, ear cleaner, etc, etc, etc, etc)


So..... luxury?
I suppose.

 

[Haven]

I don't even want to detail how much we spend on our furbabies each month, but it is A LOT. Between the raw diet and the ongoing training, vet expenses, not to mention the yearly boarding expense when we go on vacation, these babies are costly.

Should I even add in the cost of the treadmill and the pool? We bought both of those so we could give pup #1 adequate exercise.

But they are worth every penny. Every. single. one.

 

[HollyS]

Pets are family. If they aren't family to you . . . don't have one. Now, I'm speaking specifically about the usual pets like cats, dogs, and other mammals who interact with their owners. And birds. I can't speak for fish. Or reptiles.

DF, a pond full of koi are not pets - - in the normal sense. But I'm sure they wouldn't object to a little love and pampering.

 

[Tuckins1]

Yes, I believe that they are. A person needs to have extra time, money, and the URGE to care for another creature. I know too many people who have animals and shouldn't because they work all day every day and have no time or money to take proper care of an animal.

 

[Imdanny]

Yes, I do think they've been viewed that way in history. It takes a certain amount of economic resources to keep a pet. Reaching that level for a society implies that pets are a luxury item.

They bring you comfort, become members of your family, have many benefits, etc, etc. But you can live without one.

 

[soocool]

Yes, I do think they've been viewed that way in history. It takes a certain amount of economic resources to keep a pet. Reaching that level for a society implies that pets are a luxury item.

They bring you comfort, become members of your family, have many benefits, etc, etc. But you can live without one.

Yes, but think how lonely you'd be. And Danny a dog would have come in handy those cold nights without heat.

 

[elrohwen]

Yes, I do think they've been viewed that way in history. It takes a certain amount of economic resources to keep a pet. Reaching that level for a society implies that pets are a luxury item.

I thought this was very insightful. I have a friend from Ghana who does not understand our fascination with pets - where he grew up people didn't have pets, or if they did the pets didn't live indoors treated like members of the family. As he puts it, there were far more important things to worry about on a daily basis, like other people. I think they're a definite luxury item for a society in general.

 

[Imdanny]

Yes, I do think they've been viewed that way in history. It takes a certain amount of economic resources to keep a pet. Reaching that level for a society implies that pets are a luxury item.

They bring you comfort, become members of your family, have many benefits, etc, etc. But you can live without one.

Yes, but think how lonely you'd be. And Danny a dog would have come in handy those cold nights without heat.

Well, if my partner wasn't away on business! Are partners a luxury? (Ok, just kidding!)

 

[kenny]

Define luxury - anything beyond, air, water and food?

 

[TravelingGal]

Define luxury - anything beyond, air, water and food?

Anything that you can insure?