• PP_GIRL_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Also worth considering that growing up with cats linked to higher-income households, which is linked better access to Healthcare and accurate mental health diagnoses

    • PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Do you have a reference? The only reference I could find (which I’m not thrilled with) indicates that their survey says exactly the opposite. Dogs skew towards higher income households, cats skew lower.

      Dogs have a higher cost of ownership in food and vet bills, but I suspect (owning both for many years) dogs have a much higher cost in time invested. If I was working two jobs to make ends meet, I could see doing it with a cat, but not a dog.

      • moistclump@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        I thought it’s compared to not having a cat, not compared to having a dog.

        The headline wasn’t “those who grew up with cats more likely than those who grew up with dogs…”

        • PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          I think that’s a reasonable question, regardless of the intended original meaning. I honestly think it’d make a good (and fundable) study.

          Basically, look at the income skew in the disease population controlling for pet ownership. If high income cat owners are more likely positive, then we’re likely looking at a medical access question and the overall national health impact estimate should be adjusted accordingly.