Mission:

In a coffee shop in Seattle, another 20-something creates a blog.

Graduating from college with a degree in Economics, the newly-initiated (to the fellowship of educated women and men) finds herself happy, in love, at home, and struggling.

Having had to penny-pinch her whole life, she is now struggling to make decisions like: is it cheaper for her and her boyfriend to take the bus and occasionally be stranded, or pay for parking and gas? Can she go out with friends and have a beer, or will that interfere with her electricity bill? Quite frankly, her household is making the decision to live on mostly rice so that they can keep their shelter, electricity, mobility, and (occasionally and only if they're lucky) sociability.

It's not a problem. "The worst that can happen, is someone can take us to court and prove we're poor."

I suppose it's worth asking what makes her feel so entitled to have a roof over her head? 

It's a loaded question motivated by a loaded word: entitled. In college, it had to do with people who seemed to think others should move around them. They were entitled to having people clean up after them, standing in particular spots in the hall, straight A's, and a few people were even entitled to the sex organs of others.

Here, it reflects the idea that someone's worth is measurable by their earnings(1), and also the idea that a shelter is a human right. I tend to reject the first and accept the latter. This hypothetical woman we've been talking about (me) works hard. 6-7 days a week if she can get it. She's trying not to give up on her dream of being a socially responsible economist-researcher and take up volunteer and un-paid internship positions, but her financial standing doesn't really give her that luxury. Her boyfriend is trying not to give up on his dream of being a recognized painter/illustrator and also working, despite hours demanded for commissions and shows. They even quit smoking. I guess that means they have to choose between apartment and movies. Internet and food groups.

(1)It is worth debate if that idea exists and is prevalent, I argue that it does and will cite examples in future posts.

I don't think life should revolve around money, but it often does. Whether you have a little or a lot. When you have a little, you have to think about where the money for your financial obligations (mortgages, student loans, children) is going to come from, and what you can afford to live without. When you have a lot, you have to think about where to invest it, if it will all be gone in a flash, and who has more than you.

There are several professors, researchers, professionals, who believe this is a silly way to do things. Amongst them people reject it, or try to work within it. Some call themselves socialists even though they know they'll be laughed at. Some fight off the name Economist, some cling to it. The point is, there are people who are well-acquainted with standard economic thought (the philosophy that mandates economic decision making at the national and international level) and reject it. Respected or Respectable Academics. My mission is to collect and highlight their points and hope to give them a little more voice, while also lamenting my not-so-bad existence, combining the two worst forms of blogging: Pedantic and Angst-Ridden.