Don't worry about what I do.

Something that you'll learn quickly is that economics is a versatile and dynamic area of study. When explaining to people what it is exactly I do, I normally don't know what to say. The generic definition off of Wiki is:

"Economics is the social science that analyzes the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services."

Or, the hyper-generic definition:

  "Economics is the study of how society allocates scarce resources and goods."

But anyone who gets beyond the old perfectly competitive classical stuff in micro I and II will realize they're a bit disingenuous, or at least incomplete. To give a living example of why they're off, look at Gary Becker. To be clear, I love the work of Professor Becker. He has some of the most original stuff out there, and you can accurately consider him a sociologist's economist. I'd even go as far to say that a large reason the Chicago school can be so unconventional in it's chosen topics is largely due to him.

To give some examples, he helped kick start the discussion of economic discrimination, as well as helped develop the idea of rational addiction. That's what I think of when his name comes up. Very unconventional areas where he provides clear and understandable (although I believe can be oversimplified, and, perhaps, incorrect) analysis. Why is there a difference between Black and White wages? Perhaps discriminatory White employers prefer to pay their Black employees less in order to maximize utility. Is the rational, utility maximizing framework untenable when it comes to addiction, or do even those who are addicted make rational choices at times? Of course these aren't all encompassing and final conclusions. They're imperfect, sure, but they kicked off the discussion on very reasonable, and tractable, launch pads.

But that's not what I wanted to talk about. What I wanted to talk about was this very interesting paper I came across. Now, keep in mind this isn't one of his more formal and rigorous papers (it was written with Posner, c'mon.), and it's certainly not the first of it's kind. But it should give you an idea of why economics isn't as easy to define as some may claim.

Suicide. What can we understand about it? Well, Becker mentions that we can keep the same utility function, but this time allow it to go negative. In other words, have years in which people, on average, are very unhappy and gain no pleasure. Then, throw in a time preference, or have them define which parts of their lives they put extra or lesser weight on. Do you prefer now to later, young to older? etc. After that, put their expectations on what they think the future will bring.

To sum up, here's a direct quote:

 "The dominant characteristic of suicide is its finality – there is no second chance. Hence any purposive model must treat suicide as an irreversible act of a major magnitude. Suicides reflect a belief that it is not worthwhile to continue to live. We interpret “not worthwhile” to mean that the maximum utility from living falls below the point at which a person feels he is just as well off being dead"
 

 Or, specifically, it's rational to commit suicide if:

For you non-economists or non-mathematicians, this is just stating that the sum of all years afterwards aren't worth living if they give negative utility, or happiness. Notice this doesn't have to be all negative. You could have some good years in your future, but if the disutility outweighs them, then it would be rational for the individual to save themselves the pain and suffering. Gives whole new meaning to the phrase "Dismal Science", but helps explain life nonetheless. 

Becker, with his classic sociologist's eye, mentions some other strange related areas, such as:

"The expected utility loss or gain from committing suicide depends on whether a person is concerned about the effect on a spouse, children, or others. He might be discouraged from suicide solely because he is concerned, and they would be especially unhappy if he died by taking his own life. The role of such mutual interdependence in preferences implies that single persons, childless couples, and those without close friends are more likely to take their own lives."

And,

"Christianity, Islam, and to a lesser extent, Judaism all encourage a favorable view of life after death for deserving souls. Since this raises the expected utility from death, it also raises the range over which death appears preferable to continued living. The effect of this would be to increase the effective suicide rate. Possibly to counteract this implication, most religions, especially Catholicism, strongly condemn suicide."

Gotta love this guy. Well, as I mentioned, economics is omnipresent and unconventional, but certainly applicable in even some of the more dreary and dismal respects.

I'll probably talk more about this subject since it's much easier to describe to non-economists and economists alike. Not to mention it's probably much more interesting for most. Still, that should do it for now. I highly recommend looking into all related work. Don't let the math scare you off.