[stevofolife]

Seems reasonable but not so friendly in practice. Not everyone can afford to raise a pet due to living conditions, financial reasons, and time and attention.

Edit: "Afford" might not be the best term to use here since it relates to money mainly. "Capacity" might be slightly better.

[daelon]

You must have misunderstood, because those are excellent reasons to get a pet first. If you can't afford the time, attention, and money to raise a dog then how could you expect to raise a human child?

[stevofolife]

I think your priorities are different than mine ;)

[randomdata]

Human living conditions are well suited to supporting children (human living conditions are designed for humans after all) – other animals like dogs, not so much.

Financial viability is improved with children (they start to contribute once you get past the first few years) – other animals like dogs, not so much.

Existing time and attention focuses can much more easily integrate children (like dining out? Bring your children!) – other animals like dogs, not so much.

[bokchoi]

Not to be snide, but if you can't afford to raise a puppy, you probably can't afford to raise children.

[stevofolife]

I don't think that how life really works? Also not trying to be a snide either.

[feoren]

Which part is not how life works? Quick Google searches say that the average lifetime expense for a dog is $20k to $55k; for a child it's $240k. I'm sure these numbers could be argued endlessly, but the rough order of magnitude is right. And life really does work like "if you can't afford $X, then you definitely can't afford $10X".

[randomdata]

> I'm sure these numbers could be argued endlessly

Indeed they could. Most painfully, the child figure includes things like the cost of keeping a larger house. Yet in reality a child couldn't care less how big or small of a house you have. Hell, early North American settlers used to live in tiny, one room log cabins and raised like 12 children in them just fine. If parents choose to live in more luxurious accommodations, good on them, but if we are being honest that is an adult cost to satisfy adult desires, not a child cost. The cost to support a child on what is actually necessary to support a child is only a tiny fraction of that.

But let's say, for the sake of discussion, that the figure is irrefutable. A big difference is still that the child starts to contribute after the first few years. The outflow may be $240k, but there is an inflow to offset it. Unless you are an evil parent who locks the kids in their bedrooms until they turn 18, a net gain would not be unexpected.

While there may be individual dogs out there that could have the same said about them, in the typical case the dog can't offer anything to contribute, even if the dog wanted nothing more.

[AndrewDucker]

When do kids start to generate money? I'm not aware of this happening to any significant level until they are in their mid-late teens. And even then the amount they bring in is vastly less than the costs of looking after them.

[randomdata]

By the time they are 4-5 they become quite capable of doing many things. A good place to start is cleaning the house. You are, at least in these parts, going to pay an adult at least $20 per hour to convince anyone to show up – or $20 per hour to yourself if nobody else does. If we assume 30 minutes of work each day, that's $3,650 over the course of the year.

Studies that focus on what it actually costs to raise a child – not what it costs to raise a child and stroke parent egos – suggest that it is more like $4,000 per year to raise a child. So at this relatively young age are only in deficit by a few hundred dollars after a year. However, their capabilities ramp up quickly from there. If a teenager is only able to contribute $3k worth of value or less per year, you have failed them miserably[1].

[1] Or they have some kind of severe disability. That is the dice you do have to roll, but is statistically uncommon.

[shapenamer]

"if you can't afford to raise a child and some other additional costs that are unrelated, like a dog, then you can't afford a child". Oh ok that makes perfect sense, thanks for holding the snide, lol

[ssully]

If that’s true of raising a pet, than that person probably shouldn’t try raising a child.

[stevofolife]

That's not the best conclusion. How many families are pet owners? It's not a hard requirement and it doesn't make sense for it to be a hard requirement.

[bokchoi]

No one is saying it's a hard requirement. It's a recommendation to understand how difficult raising a creature that depends upon you for everything is.

[jemmyw]

66% in the US. I don't think anyone was suggesting it was a hard requirement. The idea was if you're unsure about having a kid try raising a puppy first. I don't necessarily agree but it probably would train you.