Nick Fonte
AP Economics
Mrs. Straub
1 February 2016
Woof Woof
Whether it be the hope for a better job or simply a job at all, competition does and always will exist. Something people often forget to include in the job market competition is the use of animals. Animals, such as those at Sea World, can be used for a variation of labor. Although animals do allow businesses to earn profit, they should remain discluded from the labor force.
(Pets used for an animal show in Seaworld)
Animals are used across the globe as means of labor. One might ask how these animals will receive compensation for their work. Some animals, such as farm animals, are used for the interest of their owners. While animals don’t necessarily receive money for their work, they do typically receive a better life. Many animals, like those at zoos and other entertainment businesses, are debatebly provided a safer and generally better life. Some people, like Peta,
argue animals held at these facilities are being mistreated. While all of these aspects of animal jobs are concerning, there is still the concern as to whether or not animals should be included in the work force for they are technically receiving a variation of compensation and enable businesses to make money.
There are several characteristics of the labor force that a human must fit for them to be included. The two main groups of the labor force are those who possess a job and those seeking employment. It would be easy to classify animals with “jobs” as employed and those who aren’t as unemployed. The problem is the fact that believe it or not, the average animal is not seeking employment. Their employment is almost always received through the help of their owner. The simple fact that animals don’t need a job to survive is the reason why they will never be included in the labor force.
While it is apparent animals contribute to the economy, they should not contribute to the labor force statistics. It is simply impossible to count the total number of animals that could potentially “work” and they do not fit the definition of a member of the labor force. While a new statistic may be beneficial to count for the economic gain provided through animals, the contents of the current labor force should remain the same.
Works Cited
Brait, Ellen. "Peta's Latest SeaWorld Abuse Claims Allege Animal Welfare Violations." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 2015. Web. 05 Feb. 2016.
"Rescue Dog Makes Splash at SeaWorld." Rescue Dog Makes Splash at SeaWorld. Web. 05 Feb. 2016.
"7 Mind-Blowing Ways Jobs Are Being Outsourced to Animals." Cracked.com. Web. 05 Feb. 2016.
I think your comments on the current situation of animal labor is one that is interesting and definitely worth debating in economics today. I would also argue that in a way, even if animals themselves aren't being counted in the labor force, there are still lots of animal trainers and handlers that are employed as a result of these animals. Therefore, the labor force still has partial representation from animals because each animal needs an employed trainer or handler to do work in the first place. Therefore, I can also agree with your position that including animals themselves in the work force is not a good idea, not only because it would be a near impossible task, but also because it would be redundant to count both the animal and the party responsible for each animal.
ReplyDeleteAnimals most likely should not be included as part of the work force. They are not themselves earning salary, any income made by the animals is directed towards the owner. The owners are also the ones to make any investment for the animal, and to actually look for a form of employment for the animal. More likely, the owner of the animal would be part of the workforce instead of the animal.
ReplyDeleteWell that sure is hard to believe that statistics show that the average animal is not seeking employment (very funny). I do agree with your personal beliefs that animals should remain discluded from the labor force. Personally, I also believe young children should not be included as part of the work force for they, as well as animals, have no say. Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen sure have made quite the profit off of their acting on Full House, but what they have done with that money is simply a siding stat that children and animals should not be forced into labor without their consent. Mary-Kate was in rehab because of drugs and the whales at Sea World have attacked their trainers most likely because of their close proximity and lack of swimming room. In conclusion, the use of animals should not be in the job market.
ReplyDeleteI like the interesting and slightly comical approach you took for this blog post. The topic of animals in the workforce is often overlooked. I thought what you said about "working animals" being better off was interesting. While most animals are likely treated better to remain healthy, animals in certain jobs can often be abused for their work. Since an animal can't refuse to work and has no true way of communicating with the "employer" it is a perfect setup for mistreatment of the worker; which can be related on some levels to workers on the lower end of the job market who are forced to work long hard hours because they need the job and have no way of getting out of it. On another note, I don't think you can technically consider animals "workers" in the normal sense, I would argue that they are more of a resource. If you include animals in the labor force then we would have to start including robots and other non-human workers which would be kind of ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteI can see why many people argue on why animals should be put into the workforce or not. Many people love to see the cute animals at shows, but they probably doing a job that could be replaced by a person. If there was no animals put into the work force, then that would open up more slots for people to be employed and work more efficiently than animals. But, I also believe that animals are useful when it comes to the police force since they are able to pick up on more things quickly than us and help police officers find evidence. There are both up and downs when it comes to animals working or not but since they don't have a voice it's all up to the owners to decide for them.
ReplyDeleteI 110% agree! I was just thinking about this topic. I do not think it is right! What do they get out of it? It's not like they get paid like the employees even though the fact that the animal does ALL the work. I also think that they aren't having fun at all doing it who would want to be told what to do all day just so they could get fed? I know I wouldn't. It makes me upset and angry when I see poor dogs or any animal for that matter getting flashed cameras in their eyes or in a cage. I mean maybe some animals do love all the attention but, I highly doubt it. I also think having service dogs being put to work in airports are so ridiculous! Again what do they get? Not to mention I know for a fact that all these work animals DO in fact get mistreated. I get that maybe the jobs would be taken away from the humans but if they really want to work with animals why wouldn't they just try and help the animals instead of show the animals off and make them do tricks. You did a great job with everything and it was a great topic to address. It's something that needs to stop.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that animals should get benefits out of being in the workforce, but it's more of the owner being the boss over the animals. The owner basically trains and showcases their animals, and gives them benefits from it, but they will keep the salary. They go through being shown out to everyone, and being expected to showcase talent all the time. Sometimes show animals don’t even act like real animals, so at least they should get benefits out of it.
ReplyDeleteI feel like dogs in the workforce is an interesting topic. Many times dogs in the workforce aren't for show and do an amazing job keeping us safe such as the dogs who can sniff out drugs, chase bad guys faster than we can, or sniff out a inmate who escaped but I do agree that in some cases its harsh for the dogs and unnecessary. I think they shouldn't be apart of the workforce because how can you quantify whether or not their job is truly necessary.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this 100%. From my perspective animals really have no gain of being part of the "labor force." The people who pull off the shows get paid while the animals are the one doing all the work. Most animals that do live in captivity like zoo's or sea world are mistreated even if it may seem like they aren’t. If someone really wanted to work with animals they should not want to work as one that is showing them off they should work at a job that is in some way helping animals live a better life. Overall this was a really good article.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the writer that animals such as dogs should not be put into the labor force. An employed animal such as a dog getting its own income to me is something that just shouldn’t happen, for what would the animal do with the money? Animals don’t use money or a currency to purchase items and live like we do. Wild animals have to hunt for what they want and domestic animals are feed what they desire from their owners. They shouldn’t be classified as employed or unemployed. Having animals with their own income is not going to benefit the animal directly. If the owner got the money or dog's income then the owner would be able to use the money and make the animal's life better but because the dog doesn’t know how to use modern currency, there’s no point in bringing them into the labor force.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the fact that you said animals should get benefits out of their work and labor is true, but in reality if they did get benefits like an income what would they do with it? They can't go out and spend money, but I also think that they should get rewarded for all the shows and work they do for the companies. In reality the animals do get rewarded, they don't have to go searching for their own food because the workers and the companies care for them and they take care of their food and make sure the animals are well kept and well fed. The animals are also guaranteed a safe place to live, they don't have to worry about other animals and all the dangers of the sea and ocean. Therefore I believe that animals are much better off staying in the sanctuaries where they are now because they do get benefited. While it may seem like some of the companies are breaking violations and codes of their "contracts" and other things, they are repaying their animals for the labor by keeping them safe and away from potential danger in the ocean. Overall I think you made a good argument as to why everything should remain the same and I agree with you when you say they should not be mistreated and have something that benefits them back, but I believe that they do have some sorts of benefits.
ReplyDeleteAnimals should not get paid by the people that use them since they do not use money but, I see why people would get that thought. instead of paying said animal it should get the benefit of living a better and brighter life then other animals have today by having food, water and all that good stuff.
ReplyDeleteI’m a little bit confused as to what this is trying to say exactly. I understand that you don’t want animals to be mistreated, but your argument is against something that isn’t an issue. You’re arguing that animals shouldn’t be considered ‘part of the labor force’ and they aren’t. I think you had really good content about how animals are used to work for humans and that most places don’t mistreat them, but you didn’t really have anything to argue against other than ‘PETA says that this is mistreatment and animal abuse.’ I want to know more about what this huge animal organization thinks, where are PETA’s credentials and evidence that animals in the workforce is wrong? Are they right, or wrong about this and why?
ReplyDeleteI’m a little bit confused as to what this is trying to say exactly. I understand that you don’t want animals to be mistreated, but your argument is against something that isn’t an issue. You’re arguing that animals shouldn’t be considered ‘part of the labor force’ and they aren’t. I think you had really good content about how animals are used to work for humans and that most places don’t mistreat them, but you didn’t really have anything to argue against other than ‘PETA says that this is mistreatment and animal abuse.’ I want to know more about what this huge animal organization thinks, where are PETA’s credentials and evidence that animals in the workforce is wrong? Are they right, or wrong about this and why?
ReplyDeleteAs you said, animals do receive benefits. They are treated differently and provided with food and shelter which is all they really need if you think about it. Animals don't need other necessities as humans do to live. We are more demanding and foremost we have the balance between needs and want whereas animals have very few needs to survive. Therefore animals are guaranteed everything thing they need through labor otherwise businesses and organizations would be shut down. Typically you wouldn't see any animals mistreated and mostly they're treated above average. For instance zoo keepers who are paid to help and provide animals with their benefits wouldn't mistreat them because they are getting paid to do so. There was good statements and personally opens my mind on this subject, but I think because they are animals they wouldn't be treated with the same benefits and we humans would, the needs are minimized to suit their needs for working.
ReplyDeleteRather than fussing about whether or not animals should be part of the statistic side of the labor force, why don’t we fuss about the fact that they are ‘in the labor force’ at all? Animals cannot do anything with pieces of green paper or small indigestible coins. When a pet is working, it’s the owner that gets the pay--not the pet. I’m not saying that every owner is mistreating their pet to get money--I’m saying that the pet isn’t really receiving extended benefits that the owners are getting. The pets aren’t the ones really getting the benefits. It’s the owners. And don’t use the: “Well they are getting a home to stay in and food to eat.” retort because that’s just basic rights to anything breathing. Even though this is basically the only thing that they NEED, shouldn’t they be just as spoiled as us? Another note, PETA isn’t completely pro-animal. In 2014, 88.3% of the animals that PETA brought into their care were euthanized. Not to mention the other things that they’ve done that make them *@&#%*$@#(#%&%.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.petakillsanimals.com/
I think that animals, while hard workers, are ultimately still animals and are left in the care of their owners as to how to treat them. If the animal does good work, it also shows that the owner is committed to bringing out the best in the animal. Giving only the animal the benefits is cutting the owner, who has a large stake in how well and how properly the work is done, out of the equation and attributing the animals for all the work. Animals are ultimately not truly capable of caring for themselves. For this reason, adding the animals to the workforce is elevating them to the same standard as a human, which not only complicates matters on an economic level, but also diminishes the fact that these animals aren't exactly doing it to get food on the table.
ReplyDeleteI agree with some parts of your argument and disagree on others. I believe all animals should not be considered a part of the labor force. Yes, they do bring money into businesses, but they don't get "paid" with cash for their efforts. They don't need money to live, like we do. They simply rely on their owner to take care of them and give them attention, for that's all they really want. However, I disagree when you say animals receive better living conditions. There are numerous stories of animals at Sea World being mistreated--one of them being a whale that purposefully drown itself because it was stuck in such a small tank when it should be in the vast ocean. These types of animals shouldn't be used to earn money for a business. But animals such as dogs and cats can be used for shows, acts, ect., because the environment isn't different from what they are used to.
ReplyDeleteLike you addressed, animals in zoos, shows, or services often receive a form of "compensation" for their work. While it is true that animals are in theory supposed to hunt for their own food and fend for themselves in the wilderness, society evolved many years ago when the dog became domesticated in the household. Therefore, while I believe that efforts against animal abuse should continue to be pursued as animal abuse is still a prevalent issue, the role of animals in daily life has changed, thus changing the role of animals in the "workforce" as well. I think that the usage of dogs in the police force, firefighting, etc., granted that the animals are treated well, is a utilization of resources rather than maltreatment considering that the domestication of animals occurred decades ago, and the use of animals in the work force is simply a result of that.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you say the labor force should stay the same with these animals. There are many animals that could potentially be apart of the labor force, but to many. They do all the work, yet their owners or shows people get paid the money. Most animals like dogs, cats, or even house animals live in captivity, and whether we see it or not a lot of them do get mistreated. The people that show them off shouldn’t just help themselves make money, they should help animals live a better life, and make sure they do. This was a good article to think about and write on because most people understand what you are trying to say and how this could be bad for the animals.
ReplyDeleteAnimals around the world are used for labor, as you said, and though they are receiving benefits like extra care and healthy foods, these benefits do not outweigh the cons. Animals were not meant to run shows for people or do other sorts of labor-like tasks for human benefit, they were meant to graze the grasslands of the world or to be a domestic animal friend. And just because animals have no voice, does not mean that we should speak for them and it surely does not mean that we should assign them a job just for our profits.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your content when you talk about keeping the animals out of the labor force. Money would serve no purpose to an animal. As humans, we live a life where money is a necessity. As for the man or woman training the animal, they could use the income that the animal brings in to help it live a better life, but it would make no sense for the animal to receive a salary as it would be dumbfounded trying to use it. Animals themselves have no reason to be labeled as employed or unemployed.
ReplyDeleteI feel that while animals should not be included in the work forced that sometimes if it is part of the person they live withs job then it can be an except. For example pet shows like the one given above. People who work will animals make a living on training these animals so if these animals were not in the work force people could be out of there job.
ReplyDeleteI feel that animals should be included in work forces but carefully. What I mean by that is we use dogs for red cross and make a wish appearances and they make people happy and what I mean in some cases and carefully is when they are used in police activities and so they are at risk of putting dog in danger 24/7. Other than that the dogs in the workforce is completely safe.
ReplyDeleteAnimals should be included in the work force. They do a lot for people and not many people see it right away. Disabled people will have dogs help them get around and stay safe, along with dogs to help police to smell and help find and contain criminals. Also, animal labor can be more beneficial and efficient than human labor when it comes to things like farming. Taking care of animals should be the only concern but definitely animals should stay in the labor force.
ReplyDelete