Pet Consumerism
There is an enormous market surrounding pet
consumerism in the United States that often seems to fly under the radar of
attention. Besides the things one would expect pet owners to spend on
(veterinarian care, food and name tags), there is also spending on toys,
accessories, pet insurance and everything else imaginable. According to Animal House: Economics of Pets and
Household, “Pet spending in the U.S. increased...from $17 billion in 1994
to $34 billion by 2004.” (Schwartz, et al., 2)
I
don’t personally own a pet and in fact, I never have, so I do not necessarily
relate to the companionship wrought between a pet owner and his or her pet.
However, that amount of spending seems unnecessarily lavish. To put some
perspective to that spending, according to the International Monetary Fund’s
ranking of countries by gross domestic product (GDP), pet spending in the
United States would be number 89 out of a listed 185 countries.
Certainly, that’s not a
mindboggling number, but at the same time, it’s spending on pets. There are people starving in
Africa, without access to clean drinking water or freezing because they don’t
have a coat and there are pet owners that are putting pink sweaters on their Chiwawa.
I appreciate man’s best friend as much as the next person, but in some sense,
there has to be an appreciation for perspective.
For instance, look at
this report from News Channel Five:
As
the report remarks, the average owner is expected to spend on average $46
during the holidays on gifts for their pets. I understand wanting to pamper
your pet, but pampering them to the tune of forty-six dollars? That feels
excessive. Some children are not even able to have a Christmas because of
various socioeconomic circumstances and pets are getting all of that? I don’t
think I’m being too hyperbolic here when I lambaste that excess.
To
be fair, the spending makes sense; this pet market aligns well with our
American culture: we love our pets. As I mentioned, dog is man’s best friend
and we want to maintain that relationship by buying our friend things, making
sure he or she’s healthy and the like. In conclusion, to my original point,
yes, spending on the necessities like food and medical care makes sense, but
the other things? I think it’s a bit much.
Thus,
I propose this question to others: Do we spend too much on our pets? Moreover,
with respect to such spending and consumerism around pets, are our priorities
misaligned?
Works Cited
Schwarz, Peter M.,
Jennifer L. Troyer, and Jennifer Beck Walker. "Animal House: Economics Of Pets And
The Household." B.E. Journal Of Economic Analysis & Policy:
Contributions To Economic Analysis & Policy 7.1 (2007): 1-25. Business Source Complete.
Web. 2 Mar. 2013.
As a pet owner myself, I have to disagree with your outlook regarding spending on pets. While I understand the perspective you are trying to convey regarding pet spending and starving children in third world countries, I think it is important to point out that we live in a society that encourages individualism and personal achievement (which is sometimes measured by how much money we have and/or how we spend it). What I am getting at is that I have no problem spending lavishly on my dog Elvis without feeling bad about the problems going on in the world that you mentioned. In all reality, I don’t feel those are my problems to worry about and deal with. This is the mindset that our society trains people to undertake. I rescued my basset hound lab mix from a shelter when he was a puppy and have spent an excessive amount of money on various toys, snacks, and activities. I enjoy being able to spend money on him in such a manner that I ultimately feel enhances his life. To adequately answer your question, I personally do not believe people spend enough money on pets. There are many pets that are living in shelters that need homes, as well as many dogs that are neglected by their owners. I believe it takes more than just simply feeding and housing a dog in order to be a good pet owner. I don’t think people who spend lavishly on their pets have their priorities misaligned. If their priorities include spending money lavishly on their pets instead of other problems in the world (which are most likely out of their control anyways) then there is nothing wrong with that.
ReplyDeleteI feel that although a lot of money is spent on pets and things non-pet owners seem unnecessary (I too, do not own a pet and never have), I feel that money spent on pets is better than money spent on person consumption. Sure some things seem to be irrelevant for pets, for instance like dressing up an animal, but as an American consumer society, I think it is our free will to spend our money on pets. It is a challenge to try and comprehend why we would purchase an outfit for an animal, but at the same time some pet owners do not have any other family, and their pet is their family outlet.
ReplyDeleteI think the answer to the question "Do we spend too much on pets?" is a yes. I think we spend too much money on pets just like we spend too much money on nearly everything. Of course there are animals out there on the loose who do not have homes, but that has no correlation about whether or not we buy too many bones or sweaters for our little buddy Fido. If you have never owned a pet before, they are pretty awesome. Sometimes cleaning up after them and making sure they stay alive can be tough(lol), but it is worth it.
ReplyDeleteThis adds to a common theme I see throughout this class; the evolution of consumption. It seems like the rate at which people consume products has gone from a regular arithmetic growth to a near geometric growth. The reason I say this is because when I was living out west there were pet stores that promoted "all-natural, organic and non-genetically modified products" for people who wanted to make sure their pets were eating free range and organic dinners. I am not sure if that is related to the rate of consumption I have talked about, or if it is related to the evolution of consumerism where people need to keep their lifestyles healthy in all aspects, even if it means pampering an animal.
While I understand your argument regarding the large amount of expenditure on animals, it all comes down to personal choice. The third world hunger issues are not seen as a huge concern to people because they don't consider it their problem. When you mention that children "don't have" a Christmas, I believe you mean they don't receive the gifts or elaborate meals others sometimes receive on Christmas. They will still have a Christmas, you can't take that away from them, it just may not be as nice or exciting as it is for others.
ReplyDeleteSome people spend so much on their pets because they feel a connection towards them. People may lose friends over time, but their pet will always be a friend and part of their family, at least until the pet dies. This can also be an alternative to having kids, if a family chooses not to take on that kind of responsibility, they may still want to take care of someone, and a pet fills that need.
I'm going with Mark on this one. Despite not being someone who goes way overboard on spending for my pets I believe that is my choice and nobody else's to worry about. I have a dog and a rabbit and I really don't think it is anyone else's problem or business on how much or little money I spend on them. They are my finances and i'm going to put them where i feel important.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I do not and will not torture my pets with clothing or anything so ridiculous. They get the essentials, food and water, and occasionally ill buy them treats or toys. I like having pets at home. I like the feeling they give me when I see them or when I play around with them. My dog goes with me when I run, and sleeps at the foot of our bed. Its a sense of security I guess, and if spending a little extra money on that feeling is what needs to happen it will.
While I agree with you that we may spend too much money on "wants" and contributing to a cushy life for "mans best friend" and that money could be allocated to more noble causes, I respectfully disagree with you on some points. Utilizing the "Don't spend money on this because there are people out there that could use it" argument implies that money and resources can solve all worldly problems. The reasons why the WFP (World Food Programme) employed by the United Nations is not as effective in Africa is because Warlords and militias steal the food before it reaches the hands of those who need it. So throwing money at the Africans is not going to feed them. But there are charities to donate to that change peoples lives every day money isnt always the answer. I totally agree with you on the notion that people mismanage their money all the time (Labels/brands, 500 dollar sunglasses, etc.); and all of this money could be better spent or used to improve a fellow humans life. while spending money on lavish things may contribute to a persons self identity, It is safe to assume that one day future historians may look back on our spending habits and dub them Out of control or misplaced.
ReplyDeleteI feel like Mark and Michael are on the track I felt myself on while reading. Having had many dogs in my life and not actually ever having to spend much on them besides dog food a few toys here and there the yearly shots and the heartwarm/flea and tick medicine I didn't feel like I was spending too much on my dogs. It was more like a monthly bill I had to pay for having a luxury that wasn't all that luxurious in the first place. I'd say most people spend less on their pet in a given year than most people spend on cable or their cell phones. Whoever came up with the Christmas average for spending on pets must have been averaging the prices a pet store itself or something because I've never known anyone to buy their pets presents other than maybe a bone or a new toy on Christmas. The little bit of money here or there on a pet is no different then the money I spend here or there on anything else in my life. But, seeing as you haven't owned any pets I can totally see your point of view.
ReplyDelete