Ethics Term Paper Reflection

     Business bluffing has been a subject I've been very fascinated with over the past few years.  I've always believed that lying is wrong.  I still do believe that it's wrong.  It's unethical  But what if you were technically not lying?  What if you were explaining only some of the truth, but not all of it?  Is it still ethical at that point?  It was interesting for me to research this subject and learn what several other people though.  These types of people included journal writers, university professors, former businessmen, etc.

     Some thought that it was okay to bluff.  After all, business is only a game.  Carr is famous for referencing it to a game of poker.  The goal is to bluff your way to winning and fooling everyone else.  I believe this way of thinking is completely unethical.  Business is not a game.  In a game of poker, everybody has to willingly lay down money and compete to fool each other and win it all.  And while there are some people like that in the world of business, not everyone is like that.  In poker, you really only lose money (if you're not foolish about it).  In business, you could lose so much more than money.  You could lose careers and even lifestyles.  Plus, it's truly an awful thing to purposely screw someone over to benefit yourself.  Yes, I understand that you do need to take care of yourself.  But if you're actions are intended to hurt other people, a reconsideration is necessary.  I would much rather be a good person than a rich person. Other people I've researched have shared this sediment too.

     However, as paradoxical as this may initially sound, I don't believe all business bluffing is bad.  Researching this paper actually helped me come to this conclusion.  Before I started writing, I wrote off the notion that all business bluffing is bad.  I've learned that that's not true.  Only when purposely bluffing knowing full well that it'll hurt people is it considered bad.  There may be times when you have to keep the whole truth from someone solely because it will hurt them and you.  Obviously, this is a sticky situation.  You can easily say, "isn't everyone entitled to the whole truth?"  Possibly.  But business is tricky.  I presented a great example given by Jeffrey Seglin in my paper about an instance where business bluffing was probably the smart thing to do.  It would have saved the business and the employees a whole deal of trouble (you can read it in my paper on the next post).

     The general conclusion I came to is that people are generally pretty split on the issue.  But at the end of the day, it's my opinion on the matter that counts to me.  And my opinion is that business bluffing is only ethical depending on how it affects you and others.  If it affects others in a negative way, then the obvious answer to me is not to do it.  But if you are bluffing to save others and yourself, then I think it's acceptable.

Is Business Bluffing Morally Acceptable?

Landon Bangerter

Business 1040

Professor Matt Hatcher

1 May 2018

Is Business Bluffing Morally Acceptable?

    One of the more interesting and controversial topics of ethical discussion is whether or not business bluffing is morally acceptable.  In the world of business, to bluff means to present your company and anything that is affiliated with it on a higher level than it probably is.  Basically, to be deceptive.  And while that sounds like a dirty action, many would argue that business bluffing is a good thing since it can not only help you but possibly those with whom you are transactioning with.  But at the same time, bluffing is still, essentially, a form of lying, and many others would argue that this is inherently a bad thing.  The purpose of this assignment is to come to a general conclusion as to whether business bluffing is ethically appropriate or not.  My initial thought is that it is unethical and business leaders should be as honest as possible, but researching this topic could very well change my mind.  I will be researching the opinions of esteemed ethical-thinkers and examples of business bluffing.  As I write out the research, I will contrast opinions that have priorly been presented as we progress through this paper.  At the close of this paper, I will attempt to give a general conclusion from the research collected regarding business bluffing and I will also provide my personal opinion on the matter.

    We’ll start off with Albert Z. Carr, a man who’s explanation on the subject can be found in many books on ethics and who’s insight will basically serve as the basis of this paper.  This particular section of his thoughts is taken from “Ethics in the Workplace” compiled together by Robert A. Lamar.  This is perhaps the most popular explanation on business bluffing and is often used as the prime description on the subject in many ethics textbooks..  Carr argues that bluffing in business is only part of the game.  He likens the ideal to a game of poker.  He says the winner of the game “is the man who plays with steady skill.  In both games ultimate victory requires intimate knowledge of the rules, insight into the psychology of the other players, a bold front, a considerable amount of self-discipline, and the ability to respond swiftly and effectively to opportunities provided by chance.  In poker it is right and proper to bluff a friend out of the rewards of being dealt a good hand.” (Larmer, Carr, 2002, 4-5)

    Another textbook, “Honest Work: A Business Ethics Reader” contains some more explanation of Albert Z. Carr’s viewpoint.  In this textbook, he presents several examples of executives bluffing in business.  The justification here is that if it is in the legal confines of the law, then it is completely ethical, regardless of the outcome for any party.  One example Carr gives is of a firm that manufactures mouthwash.  This company was accused of selling products with a cheap form of alcohol that was possibly harmful to a buyer’s health.  In a private comment, the CEO stated that they had not broken any laws.  Their justification was that everything they did was perfectly legal.  He was clearly getting agitated that the general view of ethical treatment was frustrating his company.  The CEO says, “If the ethics aren’t embodied in the laws by the men who made them, you can’t expect businessmen to fill the lack.  Why, a sudden submission to Christian ethics by businessmen would bring about the greatest economic upheaval in history!” (Ciulla, et al., 2017, 46)

    Fritz Allhoff was an admirer of Carr’s concept of bluffing.  He too believes that the ethical implications associated with games like poker are comparable to the business world.  He claims that it is only human nature for people to bluff.  When given the opportunity to raise your sales price above your reservation price, it is only rational that you’d take it.  It is rational and human to want to have more money.  He says that it is “morally acceptable since business is governed by role differentiated morality” and “because the coherence of the idea of business negotiations itself presupposes that bluffing is accepted.” (Varelius, Allhoff, 2006, 163-164)

    However, with fans like Allhoff, there are also critics.  Professor Jerry Kilpatrick of California State Polytechnic University wrote an article citing his critiques of Carr’s views on bluffing, aptly titled “A Critique on ‘Is Business Bluffing Ethical?’”.  Kilpatrick states that there are three premises that are to be challenged.  One is Carr’s lack of including other ethical theories into his insight.  He is basically only including the Judeo-Christian religious theory of altruism.  According to Kilpatrick, there are many other views to consider when presenting such a statement on bluffing.  The second challenged premise is that business is a game.  Kilpatrick says that business is not only not a game, but that mindframe can be used to justify really distasteful acts, such as cowardice.  And the third premise to be challenged is Carr’s claim that deception is only part of the negotiation process, something that Allhoff greatly defended.  Kilpatrick then shares a piece of work from Gerard I. Nierenberg, who says, “In a successful negotiation, everybody wins. Negotiation is not a game—and it is not war. Its goal is not a dead competitor. A negotiator ignores this point at his own peril. The purpose of negotiation is to achieve agreement, not total victory. Both parties must feel that they have gained something. Even if one side has had to give up a great deal, the overall picture is one of gain.”  (Kilpatrick, Nierenberg, 2002, 1-10)

    In her book “Just Business,” Elaine Sternberg takes the side of Kilpatrick.  Business is not a game.  Not only that, but she explains that games themselves are not immune to moral judgement.  She explains that the best kind of games are the games that are fair and challenging.  We tend to not want to play games that are cheap or unfair.  And when someone is cheating at a game, the credibility and even dignity of that person (at least for the game) are uncredited.  The business world is viewed differently.  There aren’t a whole ton of rules to winning in the business world, but there’s still the morality of it all.  She exclaims, “Neither the nature of business nor the model of a game provides any justification for exempting business from moral judgement.” (Sternberg, 2000, 64-66)

    To compare with Carr’s thinking, Sternberg and Kilpatrick are both basically explaining that games and business are uncomparable.  Gamers play knowing full well the rules and what they are getting themselves into.  Most gamers participate with the intention to play fairly, abiding by the rules.  And if you lose, it’s no big deal.  It’s only a game.  Carr’s and Allhoff’s thoughts are interesting and relatable, but Sternberg and Kilpatrick share much more convincing cases.  Poker is only a game where every player abides by rules (usually).  The world of business has a significantly higher chance of moral consequences, especially when taking into consideration that everyone has at least a slightly different ethical standard than others.

    In his book “The Good, the Bad, and Your Business”, Jeffrey L. Seglin uses a different term to describe business bluffing.  He calls it posturing and essentially states that posturing is not a bad thing.  He doesn’t believe it’s dishonest nor does he believe that it lacks integrity.  When given the choice to say nothing or to disclose every truthful detail, there may be some cases where it is more generally beneficial for everyone.  An example of this he gives of this is someone he interviewed, a CEO of Inc. 500., to seek out examples of unsavory tactics.  “I called all of my people together and said: ‘Look, we’re handing out payroll checks, but we’re broke.  If you have to cash your check, I understand.  But this is where we are financially.  Could you guys just hold off cashing your checks for a week?’  All 40 employees ran to the bank that day.” (Seglin, 2000, 137-138)

It seems that Seglin takes sort of a middle ground between Carr and Allhoff, and Sternberg and Kilpatrick.  While he never really digs into the legalities of business bluffing (or posturing), his arguments tend to swing towards logical reasoning and determining what’s best for everyone.  In this sense, he stands with Sternberg and Kilpatrick a little bit.  But because he defines there to be nothing wrong with business posturing, he also takes a little bit of Carr’s side as well.  So here we have two polar opposite opinions, and a person who takes more of the median.

Determining a general conclusion is proving to be difficult.  It is fascinating to see how large of an influence Carr’s comments have had on thinkers everywhere, considering all of the opinions gathered in this paper are based on responding to Carr’s words.  There are people like Allhoff who unapologetically agree with Carr but then there are those who simply disagree with his claims like Kilpatrick and Sternberg.  And then there are those who take sort of a middle ground like Seglin.

Whatever the case may be, everything seems to circulate around the very fact that Carr stated that bluffing in business is only a game like poker.  When determining whether business bluffing is ethical or not, it always comes back to whether or not business should be treated as though it were a game.  The responses on this seem to be pretty mixed.  It wouldn’t be completely unreasonable to say that opinions on the matter are almost split at 50/50.  Although if I had to pick which side seemed more favorable, I would tip my hand towards those who largely disagreed with Carr.

As for my personal conclusion, my opinion has only been slightly swayed.  I actually tend to side more with Jeffrey Seglin than anyone else.  But it turns out to be more of a situational scenario.  You should allow yourself to bluff in certain situations.  I agree that you should generally be concerned for yourself and try to determine what is best for you and your company.  But you need to be aware of the price you could pay.  I’m not talking about physical price.  I’m talking about moral price.  How much of your soul are you willing to sell to ensure profits?

Carr has a point when he says business is like poker.  Business is not like any other game, but it is like poker.  It shouldn’t have to be, but it is.  It’s a bit more severe in business.  In poker, you usually only lose money (which is a lot for some people), but in business, careers and even lives are at stake when bluffing.  The main question here isn’t exactly how are you going to ensure that you don’t go under, but rather, who are you okay with deceiving and hurting in order to save yourself?

My conclusion ultimately ends up like this: bluffing is only okay if it seeks to not only help yourself, but not inflict dire consequences on those you are dealing with.  You owe it to those you interact to know as much of the truth as they can benefit (and possibly as much as they will take consequence from), if not only for the fact that you would probably want to know as much of the truth as you need also.  Even if they don’t know everything, they need to know enough.  Let’s be frank, it is very selfish to justify bluffing that really hurts someone else.  When your bluffing is being set up to hurt someone else, you need to reconsider your actions.  The question I would like to pose is: when given the choice to be a rich man or a good man, which will you choose?  Any day of the week, I would much rather be a good man than a rich man.

References

• Larmer, Robert A., and Albert Z. Carr. Ethics in the Workplace: Selected Readings in Business Ethics. West, 2002.

• Ciulla, Joanne B., et al. Honest Work: a Business Ethics Reader. Oxford University Press, 2017.
• Varelius, Jukka, and Fritz Allhoff. “Allhoff on Business Bluffing.” SpringerLink, Kluwer Academic Publishers, May 2006, link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-005-4665-4.
• Kilpatrick, Jerry. “A Critique of ‘Is Business Bluffing Ethical?".” Cal Poly Pomona, 2002, www.cpp.edu/~jkirkpatrick/Papers/CritBluff.pdf.
• Sternberg, Elaine.  Just Business: Business Ethics in Action.  2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2000.
• Seglin, Jeffrey L. Good, the Bad, and Your Business. Orient Paperbacks, 2011.

Economics ePortfolio Reflection

          I've learned a lot of things in this class about the world of economics, especially considering my economics I.Q. was pretty low.  But the one thing that seems to stick out to me, regardless of any subject, is the very basics of a topic.  I'm a pretty simple guy.  And what stuck out to me the most in this class was one of our first assignments back in January on the 18th.  We were talking about supply and demand.  We even played a little game where half of the class were buyers and the other half were sellers.  This is, essentially, the very basics of the economy.  No matter how deep into the economic system you go, everything is based in the fact that the economy fluctuates based on supply and demand.

          I'm not sure if there's really any immediate impact this assignment has had on me personally.  I just find it interesting.  Sellers can only sell as much as they are supplied and buyers will only buy as much as they demand.  There are several factors to take into consideration when learning what increases or decreases either supply or demand.  Some of those things include income, interests, resources, government intervention, and so on.  But the reason why I picked this assignment above all of the others we did is because it is the most basic fundamental.  And when all is said and done, the core of anything is really the most important part of anything.  And it's from the base that you build upon and learn more and more about an entire topic.  But it all sits on the base regardless.  And in this case, the base for the economy is supply and demand.

Music Final Paper: Switchfoot

Landon Bangerter                                      12/07/2017

Final Paper

Switchfoot

    I am writing my final paper on Switchfoot.  These guys have been my favorite band since I was in high school.  They’re from San Diego, California and have been together as a group for 21 years.  The group consists of five members.  Jon Foreman, who is the lead singer and switches between lead and rhythm guitar; Tim Foreman, Jon’s little brother, who plays the bass; Chad Butler, who plays the drums; Jerome Fontamillas, who plays the keyboard and rhythm guitar; and Andrew (Drew) Shirley, who plays the lead guitar.

    Jon Foreman and Chad Butler met each other in high school.  They were on the same water polo team.  Ever since, Jon, Tim, and Chad have all been really good friends and would jam every once in awhile.  Come college, Jon and Chad were in two different bands that had just split up.  So they decided that they were going to start their own band with Tim.  They formed a band called Chin Up! named after Jon’s high school best friend, Willis Chin.  They played a few shows are the San Diego area and it didn’t take long before they got some recognition from music industry veteran Charlie Peacock who owned a Christian indie label called Re:think Records.  The group had decided to sign on with him and they changed their band name from Chin Up! to Switchfoot.  All the members of the band are big surfers, and the term switchfoot means to switch your feet in surfing.  Jon Foreman relates this to a deeper meaning, stating “We all love to surf and have been surfing all our lives so to us, the name made sense. To switch your feet means to take a new stance facing the opposite direction. It's about change and movement, a different way of approaching life and music.”

    Switchfoot starting working on their first album, “The Legend of Chin,” which was recorded in Jon’s bedroom.  Right before the release of the album, Re:think was bought out by Christian giant Sparrow Records.  Switchfoot’s desire with Re:think was to expand their music from beyond the Christian music industry into mainstream audiences, but since Sparrow Records bought it out, their dreams were to be put on hold.  Which was terribly frustrated to Switchfoot.  Jon described it as a time where “half of who we were was lost.”

    Nonetheless, Switchfoot still released their first three albums with Sparrow Records.  “The Legend of Chin,” “New Way to Be Human,” and “Learning to Breathe” were the names of these albums.  “Learning to Breathe” was by far the most successful of Switchfoot “early years,” going on to be certified gold and being nominated for a grammy for Best Rock Gospel Album.  In 2002, a year after the release of “Learning to Breathe,” Switchfoot was asked to be apart of the soundtrack to the romantic-drama movie “A Walk to Remember.”  This invite would help garner Switchfoot a lot of attention.  Four of their songs were featured on the soundtrack, songs that include “I Dare You To Move,” “Learning to Breathe,” “You,” and “Only Hope.”  “Only Hope” in fact would go on to be covered by actress Mandy Moore in the actual movie and making it a cult hit.

    After the band’s success from appearing in “A Walk to Remember,” Switchfoot started getting offers from all kinds of record companies and ultimately signed with Columbia Records.  It was that Switchfoot could finally break the Christian mold and reach out to audiences of all kinds.  Switchfoot met Jerome Fontamillas while touring for “Learning to Breathe” and asked him to join the band.  With Jerome, Switchfoot recorded “The Beautiful Letdown,” the album that finally broke them through to the mainstream.  From this album, they had three hits, two of them receiving major radio play.  “Dare You to Move,” which is a refined rewrite of “I Dare You to Move,” and “Meant to Live” became huge hits and eventually became the staple songs by which everyone knows Switchfoot.  “This is Your Life,” while not as successful, was also a successful hit.  “The Beautiful Letdown” went to be Switchfoot’s only album to be certified platinum, selling 2 million copies.  While touring for the album, the band toured with Drew Shirley, whom they eventually asked to join the band as the lead guitarist.  Ever since then, the five members of the band has been inseperable.

    A couple years later in 2005, Switchfoot released “Nothing is Sound.”  The album presented itself to be more edgy, dark, densely layered, and guitar-heavy than any of their previous works.  The album went on to be certified gold and it produced two hits, one of them receiving major radio play.  “Stars” was the big hit, playing all across the nation while the less successful “We Are One Tonight” still garnered some recognition.  This similar sound Switchfoot developed would stick with them for their next three albums.  “Oh! Gravity” would be their next album and produced a hit appropriately titled “Oh! Gravity.”  “Hello Hurricane” is the album that came after in 2009 and it had 4 hits, the most from the band for any album.  The hits included “Mess of Me,” “The Sound (John M. Perkins’ Blues),” “Your Love is a Song,” and “Bullet Soul.”  The album “Vice Verses” would be created in 2011 and it fabricates three hits titled “Dark Horses,” “Afterlife,” and “The Original.”

    Switchfoot would then follow the trend most rock bands have been going through for the past few years, and that is to produce a new sound that’s more electronic and contains more synthesizers.  This sound would be present in their next two albums.  The first of these was “Fading West,” which produced the hit “Who We Are.”  Two years after that, Switchfoot had “Where the Light Shines Through,” their latest album which they made last year.  That would have three hits, “Float,” “Shake This Feeling,” and “If the House Burns Down Tonight.”

    Switchfoot is a rock band that’s still going strong.  They’re constantly donating themselves to charity events and trying to build the world to be better.  They’re still creating new music and have further plans to release more albums in the future.

References

1. https://web.archive.org/web/20050123135046/http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2004/01/09/switchfoot_steps_toward_stardom?mode=PF
2. http://switchfoot.com/our-story/
3. https://www.indievisionmusic.com/reviews/switchfoot-nothing-is-sound/

Home Builder Term Project

Landon Bangerter

Professor Jennifer Adams

Business 1010

March 12^th, 2016

Homebuilder Project Paper

            The responsibilities of a homebuilder can be incredibly diverse.  They vary depending on what responsibilities you deem on yourself.  Some homebuilders work strictly from an office and pay different contractors to perform specific jobs while they worry about finances, inspections, etc.  Some are a little bit more hands-on and perform those diverse tasks such as building home frames and walls and installing electrical wiring, windows, and insulation (“Home Builder: Job Description & Career Info,” n.d.).

            The amount of education required to succeed in construction largely depends on what specific field you hope to get in to.  Monster.com lists such requirements.  If you hope to become a craftsmen or laborer, it’s not really required to pursue any kind of education, although a high school degree and some proficiency in math and shop are of a large help.  I learned all my handiwork from experience of working a construction company, and then obviously learned math in school.  However, my goal is to be in a manager position overlooking home building.  The requirements here are not set in stone.  The usual idea is to have at least some experience and in addition have at least a bachelor’s degree in your choice of construction field (“Construction Careers,” 2015), but there are apparent exceptions to the rule.

            I had the opportunity to interview Blair Bangerter of Bangerter Homes, a local homebuilding company in the Salt Lake area.  As you can guess, yes, he is related to me.  He’s my father.  My brothers, a couple other people, and I work under him and two other co-owners as their laborers.  Blair Bangerter attended Utah State University and graduated with a major in business and minor in Spanish.  He had a little bit of experience with construction, never participating in any form of schooling for it.  And yet he decided to pursue a career in home building anyway.  When I asked him how much his degree has helped him with his career, he responded back with a low percentage of 15%.  What’s more is that he is also the architect for Bangerter Homes, designing all of the homes.  He’s never taken any classes for that either.  His experience simply consisted of his fascination for sketching homes and figuring out what a great home would look like.  Through his own self-taught designs, he would ask other architects and associates for any advice they have on how to improve his home designs.  He does this while hiring contractors to do framing, plumbing, etc. as well.  He will often ask them what they think would be the best solution to certain problems or how to make a home more livable for their homeowners.  Blair has stated that all it takes to lead a successful business is two aspects; Put all your might, mind, and strength in your work and have a genuine concern and interest in each of your potential and current homeowners (Blair Bangerter, personal communication, April 13, 2016).

            It seems to me that there is no specific educational requirement to pursue a career in home building.  A lot of it is determined by dedication and interest, but it is certainly helpful to be knowledgeable in those fields.  For me, for instance, I have the experience and interest in the construction field, but I believe I lack the business skills required to engage in such a career at this point.

      Homebuilding isn’t just limited to one specific type of builder.  In fact, there are three different types of homebuilders.  One is the custom homebuilder.  This is the type of builder Blair Bangerter is.  The potential homeowner will first buy a lot, usually from a specific homebuilding company, and work with those builders.  If they don’t already have an architect, the builders and owner will find one and pay them to design their own.  The built of the home in this scenario is specific to the want of the homeowner.  Before construction is even begun, the homebuilder, homeowner, and architect go over specific desires wanted for the home, such as size, style, features and creative touches (“Home Builders – Understanding the difference between a Custom Builder, a Spec Builder and Tract Builders,” n.d.).

            The next type of builder is the spec homebuilder.  Unlike custom homebuilders, spec homebuilders build according to their own designs.  Without a perspective homeowner, they will start building their own type of home.  Usually a buyer will come along after the home is completely finished, but every once in a while a purchase will be made during the construction of house.  Sometimes working with customers on custom homes can be really stressful, so for those construction managers that want to avoid those difficult situations, they’ll more than likely build spec homes.  These are not your average cookie-cutter houses.  Often these types of builders like to throw in their own unique tastes and work in the construction process (“Custom v. Spec v. Tract Homes,” 2016).

            The tract homebuilder is the third and final type of homebuilder.  Now this is the definition of a cookie-cutter homebuilder.  Leslie Mann from the Chicago Tribune (2010) explains that instead of focusing on quality, unlike the other two builders, this one shoots for quantity.  Interestingly enough, Blair Bangerter’s father and my grandfather, former Utah Governor Norm Bangerter, was a tract homebuilder.  The idea is to build them quick and let people buy them quick.  Usually the advantage here is price.  A lot these houses look incredibly similar, but they usually tend to be cheaper than any of the other types of homes.

            For my personal preference, my goal is to be a custom homebuilder.  While there are certainly some desirable aspects to the other types of builders, I really enjoy working with people and helping them live a dream, in this case living in their supposed dream house with their own unique, personal touches.

            A career in home building certainly has its fair shares of pros and cons.  Learningpath.org lists such pros and cons.  From a very general standpoint, the pay is incredibly good.  The average wage is high.  The median annual salary as of May 2014 was $86,000.  One of my personal favorite aspects about this career is that it’s not solely an office job.  You’ll certainly have an office, but you will often be required to visit with other contractors, make visits with the city, and visit your various jobs to make sure construction is going according to plan.  It’s something new every day.  It keeps things fresh and interesting.  There’s also a sense of accomplishment you receive upon seeing the completion of a home and finally allowing a homeowner live in something you created.

            Unfortunately, like any career, there are some downsides to being a homebuilder.  There are certainly going to be some days where work will be longer than usual due to situational circumstances.  The workload would probably require you to multitask, which could be really stressful for some.  There will probably several instances of unexpected occurrences, delays, and emergencies.  Not to mention the amount of work you have could inconsistently depend on the economy (such as the housing market crash in 2008).  And every so often, injuries could occur in the workplace.  Apparently, about 4% of people working in the construction industry experienced an injury or illness back in 2013 (“Pros and Cons of a Career in Home Building,” n.d.).

            The outlook for the field of construction management is pretty good.  Within the next 10 years, bls.gov has projected that job opportunities in that field will grow about 5% percent.  As of 2014, there were 373,200 construction management jobs in the country.  The future is looking fairly bright for this specific field (Construction Managers, 2015), as long as you’re able to deal with all the cons that follow it anyway.

            I’m very confident with my fit in this field.  Working for Bangerter Homes as a laborer has been incredibly informative.  I really enjoy talking to different contractors and going over building plans.  What makes it even more rewarding is being able to stand back after you’re finished with a project and evaluate your work.  I’ve been with the business for a while and have learned a lot.  My older brother and I have been talking about going into business together as homebuilders once I’m done with school.  He’s already had a lot of experience in building and even selling as a real estate agent.  I’ve enjoyed every minute of investigating these unique sources and learning more about the homebuilding industry.  Performing all of this research has been incredibly helpful and has only solidified my desire to be a homebuilder.  I can only have faith that the future in homebuilding is as bright as it seems to be.

Sources

1.     Home Builder: Job Description & Career Info.  Study.com.  Retrieved from http://study.com/articles/Home_Builder_Job_Description_and_Information_About_Starting_a_Career_as_a_Home_Builder.html

2.     (2015).  Construction Careers.  Monster.  Retrieved from http://www.monster.com/construction-careers

3.     Pros and Cons of a Career in Home Building.  LearningPath.org.  Retrieved from http://learningpath.org/articles/Home_Builder_Career_Info.html

4.     (2015).  Construction Managers.  Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/construction-managers.htm

5.     Home Builders – Understanding the difference between a Custom Builder, a Spec Builder and Tract Builders.  Peak Construction Company.  Retrieved from http://peakconstructionco.com/blog/home-builders-understanding-the-difference-between-a-custom-builder-a-spec-builder-and-tract-builders/

6.     (2016).  Custom v. Spec v. Tract Homes.  Shelia Conkling Jonesboro Real Estate & New Construction.  Retrieved from http://www.neahomes.com/custom-v-spec-v-tract-homes.html

7.     Mann, Leslie (2010).  Custom, spec or tract: Which house fits you?  Chicago Tribune.  Retrieved from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-07-02/classified/ct-home-0702-custom-spec-homes-20100702_1_custom-house-spec-new-house