Economist Tyler Cowen has a post on how much consumer surplus people get from pets -- very timely considering what we are studying right now.
He argues that people get a lot of consumer surplus from pets because they value the pets they have very highly, but many families do not want another. Therefore, the willingness to pay for the pet they already have is relative to the price they would have to pay for the next pet (which is determined by their willingness to pay for that next pet).
He goes on in the post to discuss endowment effects and the corresponding rise in living standards, but for this post, let's stick to his idea that people get a lot of consumer surplus out of their pets. Any thoughts in agreement or disagreement?
(Source: Marginal Revolution)