Disparities of People and Pets

Category: Americas, Life & Society Topics: Economy, Pets Views: 4150
4150

Judging from the ever-more accurate measurements of global disparities that flow from the world's leading humanitarian organizations - with the World Bank, IMF, WTO and OECD taking the lead - it would be no exaggeration to state that scholarly interest in this subject has now turned into a nearly unstoppable epidemic.

These estimates of global disparities still follow the established practice of comparing some characteristic, X, of economic development as it applies to people in rich and poor countries. Most commonly, X refers to per capita income. At other times, X refers to various indicators of the quality of life, such as life expectancy, infant mortality, adult literacy, or some combination of the previous three.

We need a different approach to the measurement of global disparities. The disparities between the rich and poor people are now so large, one has to ask if these comparisons make sense any more. When 25 million of the richest people living in the United States enjoy nearly as much income as 2 billion of the world's poorest people, one begins to wonder if the 'people' in the two groups are the same. It is likely that if knowledge of these comparisons became common, they could lead to the revival of old racist attitudes in the United States. Alternatively, they could induce feelings of deep despair among the world's 2 billion poorest people. And this could turn them into recruits for al-Qaida.

This is why I am proposing an alternative measure of global disparities. Instead of comparing X across people in poor and rich countries, I am suggesting that we make these comparisons for people in poor countries and mammalian pets in rich countries. In other words, economists at the World Bank, IMF, WTO and OECD should devote some of their resources to tracking how the economies of poor countries - especially in Africa, Latin America and Asia - are faring relative to the economies of pets in the rich countries.

I doubt if the world's leading crusaders for a better world will heed my call anytime soon; they are still fully committed to demonstrating that globalization, the greatest humanitarian project the world has ever seen, is slowly narrowing the gap between the world's rich and poor people - never mind how large the gap is currently. In the event, I will be so bold as to offer my own admittedly crude comparisons of the economies of the poor people and the pet economies of the rich. A sophisticated estimation of these disparities must wait until I can raise several thousand US dollars to pay for the proprietary data on the pet economies of the rich countries.

We begin this exercise by first establishing some basic facts about the pet economy in the United States. Lest this be taken as an indication of my latent partiality for this great capitalist democracy, I have to protest that I would just as willingly have used the European Union for making my comparisons. Unfortunately, there does not yet exist a European counterpart to the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association (APPMA), which might have provided some of the basic data on which I base my analysis of the pet economy in the United States.

First, let us establish the size of the mammalian pet economy in the United States; we define mammals to include dogs and cats. According to the APPMA, the total US pet industry expenditures for 2003 were $32.4 billion. I assume that 90 percent of this total was allocated to the canine and feline portion of the pet economy; this gives a total expenditure on this segment of the pet economy of $29.2 billion. Although impressive, these numbers seriously underestimate the true size of America's pet economy.

To the figures provided by APPMA must be added the value of the time that dog and cat owners dedicate to the care of their pets. Caring for pets can be a daily activity. Naturally, the pets have to be fed daily; they have to be groomed; they have to be taken out for walks; they have to be taken to the vets for shots, worming, injuries and illnesses. And let us not forget that many pet owners, following the advice of holistic veterinarians, avoid ready-to-eat foods for their pets. Instead they prepare home-cooked meals for their dogs and cats. In order to guide them in preparing healthy pet foods, the National Academies published in 2003 a revised edition of Nutrient Requirements of Cats and Dogs, a 500-page report prepared by an international team of experts, providing a most comprehensive assessment of the daily nutrient and calorie requirements for dogs and cats.

But that is not all. America's cats and dogs are a pampered lot. According to the results of a survey of 1100 pet owners by American Animal Hospital Association in 1999, 100 percent of the respondents indicated that they give their pets a Christmas or Hanukkah present; 87 percent include their pets in holiday celebrations; 65 percent sing or dance for a pet; 53 percent take time off from work to care for a sick pet; 52 percent prepare special meals for their pets; and 44 percent take their pets to work. Clearly, a majority of pet owners in the United States bestow tender loving care on their mammalian pets.

In order to arrive at an estimate of the true size of the pet economy (mammalian section), we would have to add to the APPMA's estimate of expenditures on pet products and services, the value of the time that pet owners devote to their cats and dogs. We make the modest assumption that dog owners spend one hour each day on their dogs, and cat owners spend 20 minutes each day on their cats. At the same time, we assign a value of US$ 10 per hour to the pet owner's time. With 65 million dogs and 77.7 million cats, the value of dog-and-cat owners' time comes to $330.9 billion. Altogether, the value of total expenditures on dogs and cats in the US economy was $360.1 billion in 2003.

Judging from its size, this is no paltry economy. How does this pet economy compare with the poor economies of the world? To give the poor economies the greatest advantage in the comparisons, we will measure their size in terms of international dollars. By this metric, America's pet economy is 1.2 times larger than the economy of Pakistan with a  population of 148 million; it is 1.4 times larger than the economy of Bangladesh with a population of 138 million; it is 2.7 times larger than the economy of Nigeria, with a population of 122 million; and it is 10.6 times larger than the economy of Congo (Democratic Republic) with a population of 34 million; and 24 times the size of the Albanian economy with a population of 3.2 million [To avoid any confusion the population numbers are for humans]. In other words, the US pet economy is larger than most of the poor economies in 2003.

How does the US pet economy compare with the world's poor economies on a per capita basis? In 2003, the 142.7 million dogs and cats in the United States enjoyed a per capita consumption of $2523. The per capita income of world's 2.3 billion people in low income countries (LICs) was $2190 in 2003 international dollars. This means that the average mammalian pet in the US had a considerably higher standard of living than the average man, woman and child living in the LICs. 

The American dogs and cats enjoyed a much larger advantage in their living standards over many individual LICs. The advantage over Sierra Leoneans was 4.8 to one; 4.1 over Tanzanians; 2.8 over Nigerians; 1.3 over Bangladeshis; and 1.2 over Pakistanis. The average Indian had a small advantage of 1.1 over American dogs and cats. The Chinese had a larger lead of 2.0. It is heartening to note that these disparities are considerably smaller than the yawning gaps that emerge when we compare people in the rich countries against people in the poor countries. 

One might think that these more upbeat comparisons give reasons for optimism for the world's poor. Given the smaller disparities between the poor people and rich pets, the poor people can at least dream that once the great humanitarian project of globalization begins to yield its trickle-down benefits to the poor, they will, in the not-too-distant future, be able to catch up with the dogs and cats in the United States.

Or is this hope only a delusion? That will depend on how fast the two economies grow: to what degree they benefit from globalization. The promise of globalization is to make the rich richer so that some of their prosperity can trickle down to their pets and the poor peoples. Although I hate to be a spoiler of this ingenious narrative - very ably modeled by Ivy League economists - with some trembling, I must vent some dark thoughts on this subject. I fear that the pets will come out better as globalization unfolds. As I see it, the reason for this is quite simple. The rich are much more likely to coddle their pets than the poor of the world, unless they employ them as maids, mail-order brides or au pairs. This is not because of any prejudice the rich have against the world's poor people. It's just that the poor people live in difficult-to-reach, mostly hot and humid countries, whereas the pets share the same living quarters with the rich. 

Does this mean that if the poor people could be used as pets by the rich, this would greatly improve their chances of deriving stronger gains from globalization? If this is indeed true, we can confidently expect that the US delegate to the World Trading Organization will soon propose appropriate changes in the global trading regime to allow for the large-scale adoption of children from poor countries as pets by people in the rich countries. I have no doubt that this proposal will command unanimous support from all the civilized peoples of the world - who, thankfully, inhabit the rich countries.

M. Shahid Alam is professor of economics at Northeastern University. His political essays are now available in a book, Is There An Islamic Problem (Kuala Lumpur: The Other Press, 2004). He may be reached at [email protected]. Visit his webpage at: http://msalam.net.

Is There An Islamic Problem

Is There An Islamic Problem - Essays on Islamicate Societies, the US & Israel.

The author has aptly dedicated his work to the victims of Empire, who die and are maimed by the thousands every day of the year including September Eleven. 

Price: $15

 


  Category: Americas, Life & Society
  Topics: Economy, Pets
Views: 4150

Related Suggestions

 
COMMENTS DISCLAIMER & RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
The opinions expressed herein, through this post or comments, contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. These are offered as a means for IslamiCity to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization. The IslamiCity site may occasionally contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. IslamiCity is making such material available in its effort to advance understanding of humanitarian, education, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and such (and all) material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.


Older Comments:
HUDD D'AELIA FROM CANADA said:
I am at your side always, H.A., as even D'Alhamd. My dear brother, Jan, the whole fired argument was because of you(your comment) and your inability to see my point although I tried every which way to make myself as clear as possible. I'm sorry, even after your comment addressed to me, I couldn't disagree more. I'm at the end of my wits and if I can't make see my point with this comment that means that I failed in conveying my message and this usually doesn't happen. I'll make five points. 1) Animals are Muslims, if you didn't know, if they are taken care of that makes me happy the same way it makes me happy to see any of my Muslim brothers happy. I tell you a little thing that happened to me in South America. When I was young I got in a deal of trouble in Argentina. Some punks took me on an isolated bank of the great river, "Rio de la Plata" and they knocked me down and through me in a crowd of stray dogs saying, "Greet your brothers, you know these dogs are Muslim!" I smiled and greeted the dogs, "As-Salamu 'Alaykum!" The punks looked at each other and exclaimed, "Ay caramba(English: damn), he is really their brother! I said, "Yes, these dogs are Muslim and they are my brothers, but you are Muslim-haters and I'd rather spend the rest of my life with these dogs than with people like you!". Now the Quran would tell you that all the creation of Allah is Muslim, except the human that chose not to be! 2) There are humans in this world that they don't deserve to live another second, name me one animal that would fit that discription. I love my Muslim brother in any animal form and I hate my kafer enemy in any human form. 3) The people that give so much to their pets are doing it for love of themselves, mainly, it just feel good to them. You cannot replace the object of their love with your worldly concerns for famine and desease. 4) The attention and love for other things than for the misery of the humans, be that animals, plants, cars, hobbies is controllable by none.
2005-03-19

H.A. FROM YATHRIB said:
Let me add a little salt to Mr. Akram X's wound. I am siding with Mr. Hudd dAleia. God Bless Canada b/c she is not an arrogant nation, neither has she transgressed.
2005-03-18

JAN FROM USA said:
Assalamu 'alaykum!
Br.Akram, let me try to respond to this one.

Hudd, you had initiated name-calling and personal attacks. We come to this site for an Islamic point of view of the current events and occasionally to make comments on the article in question. The free access to the Internet should not mean that we have the license to engage in personal attacks and insults. Your good knowledge of Islamic point of view is much valued - provided you refrain from using unIslamic language with words and phrases such as: stupid question, shallowness of mental capacities, get it through your head, living in a bubble, you talk bullshit ....

We all live here in a so-called democratic but definitely liberal society and people are free to do as they wish, as long as they do not harm, injure or deprive others of their rights. Many people come to this site to learn about Islam and the ways of an Islamic discourse.

That said; allow me to humbly reiterate the following points about the article in question:

The essence of this article is that humans are becoming in the view of some as less important than animals. There are myriad of people in this world who show more concern for animals, than they do for the lives of people. They place more value on an animal's life than the life of a fellow human being.

Somewhere our priorities have become perverted, and we have become too engrossed in the "me mentality" which is both arrogant and degrading. The "me mentality" and attitudes that life is all about how I feel, or about what I want, or about how I see things.

If that's not, misplaced priorities, than what is it?

I am writing all this in a positive vein, and it is not my intent to criticize your otherwise well written postings on this website.

Wassalam

2005-03-18

HUDD D'AELIA FROM CANADA said:
First of all my illustrious brother Akram, know that I live in a free country, it's called Canada and it is not in the Middle East, it is in North America. As such, I am free as a Canadian to be anything I want to be, savvy? If I chose to be arogant, that's what I am. I could choose to be an Islamic basher or a Zionist Christian, who would be there to stop me, huh? I want you to breathe in and out for a couple of times, deep breaths and just analyze what I said, OK? Do not turn me in to a foe when all I want to do is, educate you and your type. You seem to have great problems understanding direct and open English language. You need to improve your skills on that. However, I suggest that you should read carefully, several times an article or a comment before "you open your mouth", agreed? You talk bullshit, what preaching are you mentioning? What preaching did I do? I am a Muslim, if I preach, I preach Islam, if I talk to ignorants and illiterates, I adjust my talking accordingly. I can walk with kings as well as with beggars, as a very famous English writer put it. Mumbo-jumbo? Could you be more explicit? Obviously you didn't get an iota of what I said, which makes me wonder, if you don't know the subject why try to outsmart the teacher? Everybody here takes my own words and uses them against me? God! How ignorant those people are, as well as void of imagination. I live in a bubble? If you meant aura, yes, but bubble? That describes your person, I'm sorry, I was first to mention! Come with something original, give me some from your own creativity, you can do better than the quasi-English, "mumbo-jumbo", now can't you, brother? Bottom line get it into your head, this is not Iran and you are not going to talk to me like my father, telling me how to behave. You don't like what I say, simply don't respond, but you can't forbid me from free speech, savvy mon camarad? In the free world of which I am a product, I say whatever I want to anybody any way I want to, period!
2005-03-17

AKRAM FROM USA said:
Br.Hudd, enough of your arrogant behaviour. You seem to be under some sort of a delusion that you are the most capable person with zero tolerance for other points of view. Pardon my Pharsi, but better practice what you preach (from your own comments posted on this website):

"You didn't pay attention to the article ... a piece of advice, think before you decide to open your mouth". Sorry to say that, it is you who is living in a bubble ... and too uppity with your mumbo-jumbo? Read the article and the post and take your own prescription: think before you decide to open your mouth with rude and uppity edicts.


2005-03-16

YAHYA BERGUM FROM USA said:
I suspect the author is hoping to "lay a guilt trip" on the reader, so as to encourage the reader to "practice random acts of kindness and senseless beauty" (that sort of thing). Perhaps consider keeping the piece in perspective.
2005-03-15

JOHN FROM USA said:
This is ridiculous. These photos are humorous photos of animals, not the way most people treat their pets. Most people spend only the basics on their pets, but here in this country health care and food is very expensive, even for pets.

You're also forgetting that the US (not the government, the people) is the most generous country in the world because we care a LOT about the suffering and hungry. You can't hate us just because our standard of living is high. We work our asses off, and we're fortunate to have a stable government that allows us to constantly reinvent and reinvigorate our economy.
I understand how the wars look to other countries, and I know there's a lot our government does that is unsanctioned by the american people as well, but we're dying in iraq for nothing but the benefit of the iraqis now. We could easily pull out, but think of chaos and horror that power vacuum would bring, just as bad as when Saddam killed his muslim brothers by the thousands while he built castles from their money.
2005-03-15

PETER FROM USA said:
I'm afraid that the wretched condition in which much of the world suffers is the responsibility of us all, no matter our country, not just the United States.
2005-03-15

HUDD D'LIA FROM CANADA said:
Somebody put the inane question:"What should we save first animals or humans?" while playing down on the real problem: the war machine. It pains me to see such shallowness of mental capacities in my Muslim brothers. Any charity we Muslims do has to go through a "legitimate" organization, how many such organizations are in USA and how can anybody guarantee that the donated funds would be used for the intended purpose? My point is, I need to stress it again because some haven't the common man's mental faculties, if the people involved in the extravagant spenditure for their pets would be denied that liberty, go ask them illustrious Jan if they would give that money to the poor Muslims or blacks of Africa and Asia in exchange for their pets. You'll be surprised with their answer, maybe they will support as such much more the military and the occupation forces in Iraq, for instance. Butr get it through your head, the people that spend the billions on their pets if denied that luxury they won't spend their money on the poor, period! How hard is that to comprahend? And as such, for the poor of the world does not make a difference whether these people spent or not on their pets. Their surplus will not reach the poor, ever never! My thought was that the poor could profit only if the war mentality of the Western powers, especially USA, would turn suddenly philantropic. For the lay person, the government of the USA must initiate a relief program in order that the cattle of her citizens should follow course! Otherwise, if it doesn't hurt them or they don't know those people, who cares? Are you living in a bubble Jan? Open the window and let the noise of the street come in, don't be surprised of the gunfire...
Peace!
2005-03-14

GARNETS FROM USA said:
Where does Alam find the time for all these essays? The classes as Northeastern must not take much of his time. Such a vile, heartless country the US is! How can Alam stand it? He lives in an affluent suburb, how terrible it must be for him and his family to be live amongst all these crude, careless Americans!

If only we cruel crusaders didn't spoil our pets, we could end hunger around the world! But no, we are simply too evil. Alam, tell me again what YOUR solution is to end world hunger? Where are YOUR ideas to create functioning economies and well-governed states? Why is it that your essays can only criticize the US, never any other rich countries? Why do you only criticize, and never offer up viable solutions?
2005-03-14

JAN FROM USA said:
Nobody is talking about not caring or not loving pets and animals. In fact, our civilisation is judged, in part, by the way we treat our animals.

What we are talking about is the spending on the luxury items and unwarranted stuff that the pets probably can do without. Pets are often better fed than two-third of the world's two-legged wretched creatures better known as human.

We should also be conscientious of the nearly two-third of the world population of humans - including millions in North America living in acute poverty. Should we not consider giving a portion of what is being spent on pets and other unwarranted stuff to the poor? As for the amount of money spend on wars and killing-machines - when more people will get their act together, who knows, maybe those at the Pentagon and other war-rooms that think of themselves as invincible could be thrown out. Until than, let's do what we can.

The question we need to ask is if we had the opportunity to save both of them (animals and human) ... which would you save first the human child or the animal?

2005-03-14

HUDD D'LIA FROM CANADA said:
Yes,it's true, however there is not much point to it. I mean by targeting the welbeing of the pets. The people that spend so much(seemingly so much) on their pets they do not do it on the detriment of the poor nations of the world. Let me put it bluntly. It is their money and their pets in their country. If somehow they were forbidden to have pets, by some croocked law, does anybody think on this website that these people would direct their resources to help the needy? I personally doubt it very much. Let's see what do those that do not have pets spend their money on. Concubines is a start, Casinos is a good one too, what about betting on races and other sports, or just foolishly burning them money in to thin air. This is America and people here kill their fellow countryman for a skewed look, life is cheep here and money talks. If an American doesn't give a damn about his starving compatriot, do you think that he could be convinced that it would be commendable if he saved some money from his drugs or alcohol adiction and send them to Africa? He doesn't need to have an adiction, he/she will not give a flying hoot on the rest of the world when they do not recognize the man fallen in the street as their brother. Yes, people spend their money on pets, concubines, cars, parties, eventually on their families more than necessary and hobbies. Is there not enough money in the USA? The money spent on pets should be given to the world's poor? I don't think so! I have a black cat and she is the Queen and a great companion that I take her everywhere, shopping and on trips, name it. I admit I spend on her about $25/mo., about $300/yr. and this is more than many Africans make in a month or year even. This money along with all the money spent on pets is life saving, for these little creatures. I say that the poor of the world were tricked out by people like Bush who alotted 1/2 trillion dollars for killing people. What positive and life saving things could've been done with that!
2005-03-13

JAN FROM USA said:
Of the nearly six billion people who live on earth today and have crossed into this new millennium, two thirds live in sub human conditions. That is certainly the greatest monument to injustice, which our world has built. There has never been so much abundance in one part of the world, but never have there been such extremes of misery which deny what is human and offend the conscience of humankind. How is it possible that there are still countries where the average life expectancy is between 33 and 35 years old? It is a true scandal when there is so much abundance and waste in other parts of the world. For example, the amount of money spent each year on pets in the United States can lift those in America out of poverty - with still money left to feed the cats and dogs and what nots of the wretched human kind!

Is it moral to spend money on clothing and fancy furniture for pets when so many human beings in this country live in poverty?


2005-03-12

OMAR FROM CANADA said:
This article is not about lamenting the poor conditions of the muslim world. This article exposes the self appointed guardians of the planet and their hypocracy. These people who claim to be God's gift to humanity have much to learn.

A person is judged by how s/he treats other human beings. The Americans are self indulgent and ignorant of the rest of the planet and of the plight of the people of this planet. There is a lesson to be learned from this article, and that is to wake up and look around the kind of sufferring they are causing to other peoples.

This is another hypocracy like the one in Iraq. Their president has killed more than 100,000 Iraqis in the name of spreading freedom since the start of the war, while dismissing these numbers as collateral damage. And yet they appointment this same loony as their president!
2005-03-12

JAMAL DELL FROM USA said:
I'm sorry, but this article employs twisted logic. Pets in
America have nothing to do with the world hunger problem.
Taking care of animals is, in fact, a merciful thing to do. I
recommend that people go to animal shelters and adopt
cats that are about to be destroyed. Don't worry: allowing
their destruction will not aleviate the pain of the poor. The
woes of the Muslim world are created by its corrupt
governments and their home-grown, Lexus-driving, vill-
living cronies who keep them in office. Making references
to the wealth of America as a cause of the world's woes is
another dose of morphine that numbs our bodies and
minds.
2005-03-11

HZD FROM USA said:
I like the satirical nature of the article. The numbers used do make sense. I guesss we all should do more to help the poor after reading this article.

Besides, I'd rather not have any pets. They are a lot of work.
2005-03-11

MURTAZA ALI FROM INDIA said:
Yes, I have observed the same in my trip to the USA. The author has done well in his comparision.The american people believe in a culture in which the children are on their own once they are 16 or 17. They only meet their parents on Father or Mother's Day or on Thanksgiving, or even worst never. In order to fill this gap the oldy goldies have pets, which they think are more loyal and faithful than there own children, we cannot blame them for that.It is the same for everybody throughout the US, there are so many woman divorced, thousands of children dont know who their father is and may be many hundreds of woman have forgotten how many men they have had illicit relations with. In this atmosphere which is nothing better than the way animals live, obviously they will prefer another animal as compared to a human being. Therefore I do not think that what the author imagines will ever happen.

That is why I appreciate Islam so much, which teaches us to respect our parents and builds a healthy relation between children and parents.
I would prefer to wash the legs of my mother with water and drink that water even if someody were to give me $360.1 billion in comparision to it , the amount the US spends on pets.

Alhamdulilah
2005-03-11

JAN FROM USA said:
For many Americans, mammalian pets are more desirable than the black, brown, yellow and poor of any color of the human kind. America has often been portrayed as a land of milk and honey - a land of prosperity and well-being. But closer scrutiny brings no cause for celebration. The life expectancy of American men is lower than in 18 other countries. The infant mortality rate is worse than in 13 other nations. In 11 countries women have a better chance to live through childbirth than in the U.S. More than 50 million Americans have no health insurance and millions have no access to medical care. One out of four lives in substandard housing. One out of every five American adults is functionally illiterate. Over 80 million Americans live on incomes estimated as below minimum adequacy by the Dept. of Labor. About 50 million are designated as living in acute poverty level. From about 12 million rock-bottom poverty families, fewer than 3 million receive either free or reduced-price school lunches.
Some Americans believe that those described as "poor" in the U.S. would be considered fairly well-off in Third World nations. However, the Citizens' Board of Inquiry into Hunger and Malnutrition discovered that in the U.S. more than 15 million suffer from conditions of malnutrition and hunger comparable to those found in Third World countries. The Citizens' Board reported that many American infants die within the first two years of birth because of starvation. Another study found that the premature-birth rate of the poor in the U.S. is three times that of middle-income people, and some 50 percent of the children from very poor families grow to maturity with impaired learning ability, while 5 percent are born mentally retarded because of prenatal malnourishment.

There is nothing satirical about the inequities. It is time to expose this exploitation for what it is - conscientious people like Dr. Alam deserve our accolade for doing just that.


1. Reports from the Nation
2005-03-10