4 ms·

It indirectly becomes a form of discrimination against the poor. Wealthier renters play the game, call their doctor friends to get a note (like they did in high

It indirectly becomes a form of discrimination against the poor. Wealthier renters play the game, call their doctor friends to get a note (like they did in high school to get out of tests). Poorer renters go look elsewhere.

aaron695 9y ago
Pets aren't cheap and are long term expenses. Why are the poor getting pets? Why do you think it's a right? Why shouldn't they be spending their money on their childrens education for instance or putting the money towards buying or other long term stablisers to their future.
- etwigg 9y ago
  Dogs are fantastic for addressing childhood anxiety, and although they are expensive, they are much cheaper than a therapist. [1] [1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284277087_Pet_Dogs_and_Children%27s_Health_Opportunities_for_Chronic_Disease_Prevention https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284277087_Pet_Dogs_...
  - aaron695 9y ago
    So is good parenting. When did we get to the stage where people need things to fix issues they create. Pets help, but not if you can't afford to keep them at the expense of a happy household. Dogs make people happier and emotionally better, not denying that. So does earning $70,000+ But if your poor your can't just earn $70,000+ and the same as keeping pets (they are easy to buy though) I'm happy to work to a future where everyone get both of those though.
    - rootlocus 9y ago
      > So does earning $70,000+ I don't earn that much, but in my country, I earn about 3-4 times the median salary. I really enjoy having the money and the liberty they provide. That doesn't stop me from being anxious and depressed most of the time though. I used to think money buys happiness. And for a time it did. However, that wears off as people adjust to the new financial status.
- kbenson 9y ago
  Because not all poor people have children, and in many cases, having a pet first can be good training for having a child, especially when you run into situations where it's hard to make ends meet and you need to make some tough choices. If you own a pet and making sure they have enough to eat is hard to do, that should definitely factor into whether you can support a child if your financial situation hasn't changed. Beyond that, it's a quality of life issue. Pets can drastically increase the quality of life of people by providing companionship. Questioning why the poor are getting pets is like questioning why the poor have a smartphone, or even just the internet. To some, it looks like a luxury, but a long time ago it became much harder to lead a normal life without internet access. For example, last week was back to school night for my daughter's sixth grade class. All teacher correspondence is through email, updates about classwork is through email or the teacher website, and if you have a problem with the math homework, there's handy set of instructions for how to get instructional videos from the math website. Don't have a computer or a phone that can use the internet (which face it, is probably cheaper)? Guess you have to find a relative or head to the library to get help. Any time you question whether the poor should be spending their money on something you see as a luxury item, you should step back and think about why they are doing it, and what non-obvious benefits it might impart. That even goes for clothes.
  - rootlocus 9y ago
    > Guess you have to find a relative or head to the library to get help. I fail to see how going to a library means "much harder to lead a normal life". Personally, I would go insane without internet. All my activities depend to some degree on having access to the internet. But going to the library to check for instructions for homework? People have done that for hundreds of years.
    - kbenson 9y ago
      > But going to the library to check for instructions for homework? People have done that for hundreds of years. You don't check out anything, you use a computer on-site to view instructions. Libraries as a place of distribution function fundamentally differently than libraries as internet cafes. Even if your job hours overlap with almost all library hours, you still have the weekend to go to a library and check out books that can be used all week. Internet access from the library is only available while at the library. Our library is nice enough to have (and be able to afford) extended hours on Wednesday, so they are open until 8 PM, otherwise they close at 5 or 6 each day. Good luck using it on other weekdays if you have traditional work hours. Need to respond to an email regarding a prospective new job? I'm sure they won't mind if you take a few days to get back to them... > I fail to see how going to a library means "much harder to lead a normal life". Personally, I would go insane without internet. The context is people criticizing the poor for owning a smartphone. Not only does it solve the internet access problem, but it's probably cheaper, even with the phone cost, than a computer plus separate internet service, since the alternative is not no phone, but a dumb phone (which isn't free).
- wbillingsley 9y ago
  > Why are the poor getting pets? Why do you think it's a right? Wow, there's a way to get an Englishman's hackles up! Nation of dog-lovers... Generally, we'd like society to be reasonably inclusive regardless of means. So that even if someone is poor, they don't merely subsist, but can engage in some of the fulfilling parts of life, including having a pet (which along the way if you'd particularly like some Victorian moralism to justify why the poor deserve such things, also engages people with all sorts of virtues like responsibility, companionship, empathy,...)
  - dkersten 9y ago
    I completely agree with you, in principle, but... taking proper care of a pet is both time consuming and can be costly. Hell, getting my cat food that isn’t single-digit-percentage meat content (they are carnivores and require meat...) costs a surprisinly large amount :(
    - gardnr 9y ago
      Have you ever tried making your own? http://www.catnutrition.org/recipes.html http://www.catnutrition.org/recipes.html
      - dkersten 9y ago
        No, although I have been looking into it (and have been feeding her more pure meat too). I think I will make this a priority. Thanks for the link.
- coldtea 9y ago
  The question is why we have poor and not a better distribution of wealth. Not the Nazi-grade question if poor people deserve to have dogs.
  - rootlocus 9y ago
    > The question is why we have poor and not a better distribution of wealth. We're not going to solve the problem of "why we have poor and not a better distribution of wealth". > Not the Nazi-grade question if poor people deserve to have dogs. Nazi grade? Deserve? They can do whatever they want. Poor choices will result in poor lifestyles either way. Advising against spending money you don't have on things you don't need does not advocate Nazism.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >We're not going to solve the problem of "why we have poor and not a better distribution of wealth". Why not? In many countries we've solved the problem "why do we have subjects and kings", "Why we have slaves", "We we have peasants and sharecroppers", etc. >Poor choices will result in poor lifestyles either way. Advising against spending money you don't have on things you don't need does not advocate Nazism. Maybe they shouldn't have kids either, if they can't afford them? (Many people advocate for that too. Because of course "affording to have a kid" means "giving it a middle-class life and paying for their college". God forbid anybody brings their kid a working class/poor existence. Perhaps they should just give up and perish as a class of people). (Similar here with the idea that a "dog" is some expensive middle/upper-middle class accessory. Even homeless people can have their dogs (and often do). And the poorest of the poor, in developing countries in Asia, Latin America, Africa etc often have dogs and cats just fine. No $100 premium pet-food per month required). Here are some "bad decisions": http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/poor-man-in-india-shares-food-with-homeless-dogs/ http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/poor-man-in-india-shares-...
      - rootlocus 9y ago
        > Maybe they shouldn't have kids either, if they can't afford them? Personally, I'm not planning on having kinds until I'm somewhat confident I can give them a proper education. > God forbid anybody brings their kid a working class/poor existence. Perhaps they should just give up and perish as a class of people Sorry, but perhaps you should stop gratuitously exaggerating. I was brought into a working class. However, that didn't stop my mother from giving her best to raise and educate me into the middle class citizen I am today. Money isn't an issue unless it's a really bad problem. Education and parenting is however. I've seen a lot of wealthy people neglecting their children, just like I've seen a lot of poor people spending more time with their children. > Here are some "bad decisions" Because you can buy shoes with scraps of food?
shostack 9y ago
Is it really that? Or is it simply more likely that in a landlord's market where they can choose to rent to a dog owner or a non dog owner, they opt for the one that carries less risk of damage or complaints by neighbors (all other factors being equal)? Dogs can scratch floors, pee or poop on carpet, shred things, keep people up barking, dig up yards, even bite people. I can't say I blame them for protecting their investment to the maximum extent possible when market conditions allow. It's an investment to most, and nothing more. And I say this as someone who grew up with cats and a dog and loves animals. I might one day decide to own a pet myself, but I sure as heck wouldn't begrudge a landlord who did not want one living in their property.
- WillPostForFood 9y ago
  I don't think it is the purpose, just an unintended consequence. I agree there is a 100% valid reason for not wanting pets in a rental.
- pa7ch 9y ago
  I think we found the landlord. The homes people live in are more then just an investment to someone else. As a landlord, I "sure as heck" wouldn't begrudge a tenant the joy of finding a pet as a companion in life over few dollars.
  - pavedwalden 9y ago
    Poorly cared for, pets can do an epic amount of damage to a property (getting the cat piss smell out of flooring is more than just a few dollars). Do you believe that landlords who forbid water beds are also misers who deny others small joys out of avarice?
    - webignition 9y ago
      I recently dealt with restoring a rented two-storey house owned by my girlfriend which was rented out to a couple owning five cats. One of the cats was old and infirm and peed repeatedly indoors on carpeted floor. The smell was horrendous. I can't see how the tenant lived with it. We replaced a large proportion of the carpet throughout the house. The deposit covered the costs only because we carried out the work ourselves as part of a larger renovation project in advance of selling. If we had gone down a more hands-off approach followed by investment-focused landlords, the costs would easily have exceeded the rental deposit which would have resulted in the need to sue the previous tenant. That's a whole lot of effort to go to for a landlord and I can see how a landlord would choose to avoid pet owners given the option.
aptwebapps 9y ago
Unless it is controlled, it would simpler and more profitable to raise the rent.

aaron695 9y ago

Pets aren't cheap and are long term expenses. Why are the poor getting pets? Why do you think it's a right? Why shouldn't they be spending their money on their childrens education for instance or putting the money towards buying or other long term stablisers to their future.

etwigg 9y ago
Dogs are fantastic for addressing childhood anxiety, and although they are expensive, they are much cheaper than a therapist. [1] [1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284277087_Pet_Dogs_and_Children%27s_Health_Opportunities_for_Chronic_Disease_Prevention https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284277087_Pet_Dogs_...
- aaron695 9y ago
  So is good parenting. When did we get to the stage where people need things to fix issues they create. Pets help, but not if you can't afford to keep them at the expense of a happy household. Dogs make people happier and emotionally better, not denying that. So does earning $70,000+ But if your poor your can't just earn $70,000+ and the same as keeping pets (they are easy to buy though) I'm happy to work to a future where everyone get both of those though.
  - rootlocus 9y ago
    > So does earning $70,000+ I don't earn that much, but in my country, I earn about 3-4 times the median salary. I really enjoy having the money and the liberty they provide. That doesn't stop me from being anxious and depressed most of the time though. I used to think money buys happiness. And for a time it did. However, that wears off as people adjust to the new financial status.
kbenson 9y ago
Because not all poor people have children, and in many cases, having a pet first can be good training for having a child, especially when you run into situations where it's hard to make ends meet and you need to make some tough choices. If you own a pet and making sure they have enough to eat is hard to do, that should definitely factor into whether you can support a child if your financial situation hasn't changed. Beyond that, it's a quality of life issue. Pets can drastically increase the quality of life of people by providing companionship. Questioning why the poor are getting pets is like questioning why the poor have a smartphone, or even just the internet. To some, it looks like a luxury, but a long time ago it became much harder to lead a normal life without internet access. For example, last week was back to school night for my daughter's sixth grade class. All teacher correspondence is through email, updates about classwork is through email or the teacher website, and if you have a problem with the math homework, there's handy set of instructions for how to get instructional videos from the math website. Don't have a computer or a phone that can use the internet (which face it, is probably cheaper)? Guess you have to find a relative or head to the library to get help. Any time you question whether the poor should be spending their money on something you see as a luxury item, you should step back and think about why they are doing it, and what non-obvious benefits it might impart. That even goes for clothes.
- rootlocus 9y ago
  > Guess you have to find a relative or head to the library to get help. I fail to see how going to a library means "much harder to lead a normal life". Personally, I would go insane without internet. All my activities depend to some degree on having access to the internet. But going to the library to check for instructions for homework? People have done that for hundreds of years.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    > But going to the library to check for instructions for homework? People have done that for hundreds of years. You don't check out anything, you use a computer on-site to view instructions. Libraries as a place of distribution function fundamentally differently than libraries as internet cafes. Even if your job hours overlap with almost all library hours, you still have the weekend to go to a library and check out books that can be used all week. Internet access from the library is only available while at the library. Our library is nice enough to have (and be able to afford) extended hours on Wednesday, so they are open until 8 PM, otherwise they close at 5 or 6 each day. Good luck using it on other weekdays if you have traditional work hours. Need to respond to an email regarding a prospective new job? I'm sure they won't mind if you take a few days to get back to them... > I fail to see how going to a library means "much harder to lead a normal life". Personally, I would go insane without internet. The context is people criticizing the poor for owning a smartphone. Not only does it solve the internet access problem, but it's probably cheaper, even with the phone cost, than a computer plus separate internet service, since the alternative is not no phone, but a dumb phone (which isn't free).
wbillingsley 9y ago
> Why are the poor getting pets? Why do you think it's a right? Wow, there's a way to get an Englishman's hackles up! Nation of dog-lovers... Generally, we'd like society to be reasonably inclusive regardless of means. So that even if someone is poor, they don't merely subsist, but can engage in some of the fulfilling parts of life, including having a pet (which along the way if you'd particularly like some Victorian moralism to justify why the poor deserve such things, also engages people with all sorts of virtues like responsibility, companionship, empathy,...)
- dkersten 9y ago
  I completely agree with you, in principle, but... taking proper care of a pet is both time consuming and can be costly. Hell, getting my cat food that isn’t single-digit-percentage meat content (they are carnivores and require meat...) costs a surprisinly large amount :(
  - gardnr 9y ago
    Have you ever tried making your own? http://www.catnutrition.org/recipes.html http://www.catnutrition.org/recipes.html
    - dkersten 9y ago
      No, although I have been looking into it (and have been feeding her more pure meat too). I think I will make this a priority. Thanks for the link.
coldtea 9y ago
The question is why we have poor and not a better distribution of wealth. Not the Nazi-grade question if poor people deserve to have dogs.
- rootlocus 9y ago
  > The question is why we have poor and not a better distribution of wealth. We're not going to solve the problem of "why we have poor and not a better distribution of wealth". > Not the Nazi-grade question if poor people deserve to have dogs. Nazi grade? Deserve? They can do whatever they want. Poor choices will result in poor lifestyles either way. Advising against spending money you don't have on things you don't need does not advocate Nazism.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >We're not going to solve the problem of "why we have poor and not a better distribution of wealth". Why not? In many countries we've solved the problem "why do we have subjects and kings", "Why we have slaves", "We we have peasants and sharecroppers", etc. >Poor choices will result in poor lifestyles either way. Advising against spending money you don't have on things you don't need does not advocate Nazism. Maybe they shouldn't have kids either, if they can't afford them? (Many people advocate for that too. Because of course "affording to have a kid" means "giving it a middle-class life and paying for their college". God forbid anybody brings their kid a working class/poor existence. Perhaps they should just give up and perish as a class of people). (Similar here with the idea that a "dog" is some expensive middle/upper-middle class accessory. Even homeless people can have their dogs (and often do). And the poorest of the poor, in developing countries in Asia, Latin America, Africa etc often have dogs and cats just fine. No $100 premium pet-food per month required). Here are some "bad decisions": http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/poor-man-in-india-shares-food-with-homeless-dogs/ http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/poor-man-in-india-shares-...
    - rootlocus 9y ago
      > Maybe they shouldn't have kids either, if they can't afford them? Personally, I'm not planning on having kinds until I'm somewhat confident I can give them a proper education. > God forbid anybody brings their kid a working class/poor existence. Perhaps they should just give up and perish as a class of people Sorry, but perhaps you should stop gratuitously exaggerating. I was brought into a working class. However, that didn't stop my mother from giving her best to raise and educate me into the middle class citizen I am today. Money isn't an issue unless it's a really bad problem. Education and parenting is however. I've seen a lot of wealthy people neglecting their children, just like I've seen a lot of poor people spending more time with their children. > Here are some "bad decisions" Because you can buy shoes with scraps of food?

shostack 9y ago

Is it really that? Or is it simply more likely that in a landlord's market where they can choose to rent to a dog owner or a non dog owner, they opt for the one that carries less risk of damage or complaints by neighbors (all other factors being equal)? Dogs can scratch floors, pee or poop on carpet, shred things, keep people up barking, dig up yards, even bite people. I can't say I blame them for protecting their investment to the maximum extent possible when market conditions allow. It's an investment to most, and nothing more. And I say this as someone who grew up with cats and a dog and loves animals. I might one day decide to own a pet myself, but I sure as heck wouldn't begrudge a landlord who did not want one living in their property.

WillPostForFood 9y ago
I don't think it is the purpose, just an unintended consequence. I agree there is a 100% valid reason for not wanting pets in a rental.
pa7ch 9y ago
I think we found the landlord. The homes people live in are more then just an investment to someone else. As a landlord, I "sure as heck" wouldn't begrudge a tenant the joy of finding a pet as a companion in life over few dollars.
- pavedwalden 9y ago
  Poorly cared for, pets can do an epic amount of damage to a property (getting the cat piss smell out of flooring is more than just a few dollars). Do you believe that landlords who forbid water beds are also misers who deny others small joys out of avarice?
  - webignition 9y ago
    I recently dealt with restoring a rented two-storey house owned by my girlfriend which was rented out to a couple owning five cats. One of the cats was old and infirm and peed repeatedly indoors on carpeted floor. The smell was horrendous. I can't see how the tenant lived with it. We replaced a large proportion of the carpet throughout the house. The deposit covered the costs only because we carried out the work ourselves as part of a larger renovation project in advance of selling. If we had gone down a more hands-off approach followed by investment-focused landlords, the costs would easily have exceeded the rental deposit which would have resulted in the need to sue the previous tenant. That's a whole lot of effort to go to for a landlord and I can see how a landlord would choose to avoid pet owners given the option.

aptwebapps 9y ago

Unless it is controlled, it would simpler and more profitable to raise the rent.