Monetizing Bowser
November 22, 2019 8:10 AM   Subscribe

Although everyone knows the true value of a dog's life is incalculable, a recent study in the Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis attempts to quantify what the authors call the “value of statistical dog life,” or VSDL, following a widely accepted method for putting a price tag on a typical human life. (Herald Net | WaPo)
posted by Johnny Wallflower (14 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite
 
Pfft. I thought everyone knew that you can only rate dogs 14/10.
posted by nubs at 8:43 AM on November 22, 2019 [1 favorite]


It goes to 15.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 9:01 AM on November 22, 2019 [2 favorites]


It's really important to be able to put a dollar value on this sort of thing, but I'm not sure I love the methodology.

Generally speaking, we buy things because we value them more than their price, not equally. I might spend $20 on a shirt I like, but be unwilling to sell it for less than $40, especially if an equal replacement isn't readily available in the store. So the value of the shirt to me is more likely $30 than $20.

My dog's worth more to me than what I've spent on him! Not just in a "priceless" way, but in a "I derive value from him in excess of the money I spend" way.

They polled owners and extrapolated their willingness to spend to reduce risk of mortality, but owners (especially in this economy) have limited funds to spend on healthcare for themselves, much less their pets.

Pets are one of the few things where the consumer's labor can be readily substituted for money and see a substantial difference in value. There's a limit to how much labor the average owner can put into their crappy car to make it slightly less crappy. A new pet plus lots of love and good training can be vastly improved.

If we're not accounting for the fact that consumers literally don't have the ability to spend what a dog's worth, and are instead putting in sweat equity, we're not properly evaluating them.
posted by explosion at 9:10 AM on November 22, 2019 [5 favorites]


For the study, the authors asked nearly 5,000 dog owners about their willingness to pay for a hypothetical vaccine that would reduce their dog’s risk of death from a particular canine virus from 12 percent to 2 percent in a given year.

It's an interesting methodology but seems quite flawed. I've asked people how much they would pay to not catch a cold and people low ball the number when they are feeling fine. Once they have a cold the amount they are willing to pay sky rockets and then gradually plummets as they think they are coming out the other side. The salience of suffering matters a lot in performing these kinds of estimates. Are people really valuing themselves at different levels during different stages of their illness? I also think this depends on people having a clear understanding of probability and risk which most people do not.

I also wonder about researchers who think many dogs have been named "Bowser" in the last 40 years.
posted by srboisvert at 9:18 AM on November 22, 2019 [2 favorites]


It's an interesting methodology but seems quite flawed.

They're all good actuaries, Brent.
posted by thelonius at 9:23 AM on November 22, 2019 [7 favorites]


It's an interesting methodology but seems quite flawed.

Agreed. People might shrug and say, in response to this hypothetical scenario, "I dunno. $100?" But when their very good boy actually comes down with something serious, they may well spend whatever they can afford (which is still not actually a great indicator; a poor dog owner might only be able to afford a few hundred for the mercy of euthanasia, whereas a wealthier person is able to spend thousands on doggy chemotherapy; which of these values their dog more?).
posted by asnider at 9:33 AM on November 22, 2019 [1 favorite]


I also wonder about researchers who think many dogs have been named "Bowser" in the last 40 years.

I definitely thought this was about the Mario Bros. world.
posted by fiercecupcake at 9:33 AM on November 22, 2019 [2 favorites]


I also wonder about researchers who think many dogs have been named "Bowser" in the last 40 years.

That was my first thought, but I came around to the naming choice.

"Monetizing Fido": sparks rage, leads to social media hot takes before people ever even read the article.

"Monetizing Bowser": evokes Mario, sparks interest, leads to people clicking through before they post their takes.
posted by explosion at 9:34 AM on November 22, 2019 [2 favorites]


Trying not to be snarky, but might fail somewhere in here. Can we not with the "this method is dumb and bad"? It's fine for what this is, and for the overall level of precision policymakers might need for dog-related policy.

Whatever you want to say about it, it's better than the (AFAICT) entirely nonexistent even half-principled estimates that existed before, and I think it would be very difficult to generate a better estimate with a few tens of thousands of dollars, which is where I'd guess a survey like that would price out.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 10:16 AM on November 22, 2019 [2 favorites]


For the study, the authors asked nearly 5,000 dog owners about their willingness to pay for a hypothetical vaccine that would reduce their dog’s risk of death from a particular canine virus from 12 percent to 2 percent in a given year.

I wonder if they accounted for the age of the dog as well? Murphy is 2 and Ollie is 12. Murphy gets a pricier flea preventative because he's younger and tolerates pills (and sticks and rabbit poop and cold coffee etc etc etc) better. Ollie is still on a topical treatment because he's older and I don't want to introduce (yet another) oral med to his life. Ollie's treatment is cheaper, but that's a byproduct of how much I care about his overall health rather than his financial worth.

Which is eleventy billion dollars because he's the Best Boy.
posted by kimberussell at 10:27 AM on November 22, 2019 [1 favorite]


Summary: $10,000. (For comparison, the VS(human)L is estimated at about $9 million.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 10:52 AM on November 22, 2019


Given that dogs don't use money, nor place any value on it (which is part of what makes them so smart), I'd have liked to see this study done not in dollars, but in units that might mean something to a dog - bones, squeaky toys, postmen's legs, etc.
posted by Cardinal Fang at 2:58 PM on November 22, 2019 [5 favorites]


This seems like reasonable estimate to me in terms of how much people value pets, on average. Big uncertainty, sure. But not orders of magnitude wrong.

Anecdotally that's around the point my upper middle class circle would start to think that cancer treatments for our beloved pets are competing with other real sacrifices. I can't imagine anyone criticizing someone for not spending 20k on pet care for an acute illness.

Also as a thought experiment imagine responses to a billionaire spending $100k or $200k on pet health for an acute crisis. I'm sure there are people who wouldn't have a problem with this but I'd expect a *lot* of "isn't there better stuff to spend your money on?"
posted by mark k at 6:52 PM on November 22, 2019


In the past year, I actually have spent on the order of $10k in advanced medical care for my cat. In researching the options as I went through that process, my impression is that research in advanced veterinary care is broadly limited by the ability and willingness of people to pay for it. So yeah, I'm all for billionaires spending their (relatively speaking) pocket change on veterinary health care, because that does filter out in the form of more experienced vets, increased case knowledge in the broader vet community, and eventually, economies of scale and other efficiencies that make it more accessible.

It's far from an ideal way to advance the field, but it's better than nothing.

Anyway, once we get it sorted for people: national single-payer veterinary insurance for all pets.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 2:29 PM on November 23, 2019


« Older Dial Up!   |   The Jungle Prince Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments