Saturday, February 9, 2008

Entrepreneurial Self-Assessment Reflection

LATENT-GOOD ENTREPRENEUR

I took “The Entrepreneurial Quotient” test on 3SmartCubes.com.[1] Twenty-six questions were used to measure my character traits and evaluate my entrepreneur personality. “How were your parents employed?” “You are the [oldest] child in the family.” “What is your primary motivation for starting a business?” The results indicated that I was in the range of being a latent to good entrepreneur – one that has existing but inactive tendencies but also resourcefulness, passion, and drive.

While I was not surprised by the results, as I have always thought of myself as a resourceful, passionate, and motivated person; I realize that I have many areas in which to grow, learn, and develop. The web site lists seven other qualities of a successful entrepreneur, which I have compared my own personality to:

1. Inner Drive to Succeed: I am not one who gives up easily and I believe that challenges make life more rewarding. An example of this might be my drive to achieve and maintain a 4.0 at school.
2. Strong Belief in Yourself: This is an area that needs further development because of my low self-esteem. While I know that I have many qualities that would make me a good entrepreneur, I do worry about the not having all the skills necessary.
3. Search for Ideas and Innovation: My motto is “if it ain’t broke, search for a way to make it better.” This can be applied to administrative processes, finding cost savings, improving quality, and simply learning more about something.
4. Openness to Change: I don’t fear change but the fear of the unknown does cause me some anxiety. As technology changes so rapidly, we must change in order to keep up.
5. Competitive by Nature: Though I am not a highly competitive individual, I challenge myself to very high standards. It isn’t always about beating other people, but about maintaining high standards.
6. Highly Motivated and Energetic: Perhaps too much. I am excited and motivated by even simple things – like getting my checkbook to balance every week.
7. Accepting of Constructive Criticism and Rejection: Another area I need to develop. I can take constructive criticism but I still take rejection too personally. I would have liked to been involved in sales but I would need to overcome the rejection factor.

While these surveys are not necessarily an accurate indicator of how one would do in real life, it is somewhat reassuring that my test results were consistent with my aspirations. I have always worked in small business. One reason why I am seriously considering entrepreneurship is because I am frustrated by working for others. I am constantly looking for ways to improve processes or products and my supervisors are frequently opposed to change. It is not that I think I can perform better than the people I have worked for, but it is in my nature to constantly explore opportunities for improvement. This is the main reason why I would like to try my hand at developing an idea or business of my own someday.

WORKS CITED
[1] “The Entrepreneurial Quotient Test.” 2SmartCubes.com. 9 Feb 2008.

Thursday, December 20, 2007

THE EFFECTS OF THE MINIMUM WAGE LAW ON UNEMPLOYMENT AND THE MACROECONOMY

THE EFFECTS OF THE MINIMUM WAGE LAW ON UNEMPLOYMENT AND THE MACROECONOMY

By Ron Prettiman and Jenn Weir

For Dr. Doina Vlad
Principles of Macroeconomics
SEC 102-98
Seton Hill University
December 20, 2007

Introduction
The federal minimum wage law has been around for more than 70 years. Earlier this year, it was increased to $5.85 per hour, with future increases planned for 2008 and 2009. Like other government policies, minimum wage does not come without controversy. While its purpose is to help our lowest paid members of society to maintain a standard of living and to escape poverty, many argue that it creates joblessness and increases welfare participation, thereby hurting those who it was intended to help. Others argue that since it raises the cost of labor it will also raise the costs of our goods and services, thus causing inflation. In order to determine whether the minimum wage law actually serves its purpose, it is important to understand who actually benefits from minimum wage and what effects it has on the economy.

History of Minimum Wage
In order to understand the controversy about the increase of minimum wage today we need to take a look at how the minimum wage was created and what economic and social impact it had on our society almost a hundred years ago. At the turn of the twentieth century our country was in an industrial revolution where there were enough jobs for every man, woman, and child willing to work. Of course the working conditions were terrible and the wages were even worse. Basically the wages were what ever the company could get away with, paying men an hourly wage of $0.20 per hour, women $0.12, and children $0.08. In the state of Massachusetts around 1910 at a textile mill that was employed by mostly women, there was the first strike by employees for higher wages and better working conditions. The strike did not work, but in 1912 a commission was formed which recommended a non-mandatory minimum wage for women and children after a social outrage due to newspaper reports of the strike. The minimum wage was actually designed to stop the abuse and the unfair wages for the underage children used in the mills. This did not work either but in approximately1920, there were minimum wage laws passed in thirteen states and the District of Columbia. But because of the influence of business owners, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the minimum wage laws were unconstitutional. The court believed that a mandatory wage would interfere with the negotiations of wage contracts with the employees and the business owners.
The first attempt for establishing a national minimum wage was in 1933 as apart of the Nation Industrial Recovery Act which enacted a $0.25 per hour standard rate in the United States. In 1935 the United States Supreme Court ruled that this act was unconstitutional and the minimum wage was once again abolished. During the depression and the continued decline of economic conditions, the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938 re-established the compulsorily minimum wage requirements at $0.25 per hour ($3.58 in 2006 dollars), roughly 40 percent of the actual hourly rate. Even though this was a very low hourly rate and only applied to a limited number of workers, there was substantial negative employment from the very beginning. The government estimated that between 30,000 and 50,000 jobs were lost as a direct result of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In Puerto Rico, since the laws applied there as well, there was a 70 percent decline in the export of needle work as a result of enforcing the minimum wage act.
There were additional provisions in the Fair Labor Standards Act which provided additional increases in the minimum wage over a designated period of years. The original $0.25 per hour rate was to begin October 24, 1938, which would be in effect for a period of one year. This would be followed by an increase to $0.30 over the next six years and in 1945 was adjusted to $0.40 per labor hour. After this, the rate went unchanged until about 1950 where the wage was increased to $0.75 per hour, which represented about half of the average hourly wage. The rate continued to increase through the next couple of decades until 1968, where the minimum wage was adjusted to $1.75 per hour (in today’s dollars would represent about $9.47). This date was significant because at that point in time, the real dollar value of the minimum wage decreased due to the constant increase in inflation. In 1997 the wage was increased to $5.15, from a rate of $4.25 in 1991, which was the last increase enacted by Congress.
President Bush has recently signed a bill that was passed by Congress that will increase the minimum wage by $2.10 and has come into affect May 24, 2007. The increase will be in three increments: the first increase of $0.70 would occur by the end of summer in 2007 bringing the wage up to $5.85 per hour; in the summer of 2008 an increase of another $0.70 will make the wage $6.55 per hour; and the final increase of $0.70 will bring the minimum wage to $7.25 by the summer of 2009. This minimum wage increase will affect the earnings of 13 million American workers or 9.8% of the workforce (including minimum wage, below minimum wage, and low hourly wage earners). Since its first enactment, it has sparked a debate between the political parties over the effects it will have on the economy and unemployment.

Minimum Wage Controversy
United States Representative (Texas) and Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee is a strong supporter of the Fair Minimum Wage Act, which was passed by Congress earlier this year. In the March issue of Congressional Digest, Jackson Lee defends her stance on why America is in need of a boost to the minimum wage . She believes that increasing the minimum wage “is likely to have a greater impact on reducing poverty” (Jackson Lee, 93). She also believes this increase will help women, single parents, and minorities by offsetting the rising costs of health care, oil, and education.
According to Jackson Lee’s statistics, “an estimated 6.6 million workers (or 5.8 percent of the workforce)” would benefit from an increase to minimum wage (Jackson Lee, 92). She also describes something called “spillover effects,” or ripple effect, where people earning within a dollar of the minimum wage could also see an increase in their pay – another “8.2 million workers (or 6.5 percent of the workforce). So far, according to Jackson Lee, the minimum wage increase could potentially help up to 14.8 million workers (or 12.3 percent of the workforce) to earn better wages.
Another United States Representative (California) and Democrat George Miller makes a significant point about why it is necessary to increase minimum wage. Also in the Congressional Digest, he says, “They [minimum wage workers] have been working at a 10-year-old minimum wage but they have been paying 2007 bread prices and milk prices and energy prices and rentals. Where is the decency?” (Miller, 78-79). As you can see from the following graph, minimum wage began to lose real spending power in the early 80’s because of the increase in the Consumer Price Index.

Another United States Representative (Illinois) and Democrat, Jan Schakowsky, contributes further support for the raise in minimum wage. She asks how it came to be that people who take care of our children and aging in daycares and nursing homes are only paid $5.15 per hour while CEOs of large corporations make up to 1,025 times that amount. She reasons: “Those CEOs must really be special compared to the woman who changes their mothers' diapers or cleans their toilets. If she is a single mom with two children, she has to work three minimum wage jobs to provide for her family, according to Wider Opportunities for Women” (Schakowsky, 88).
Unfortunately, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee’s numbers are exaggerated and the other two Representatives are misinformed as to the extent of this problem. She suggests that roughly 14 million workers or 12% of the working force earns low wages and she portrays them as adult, minority, single mothers who work hard for little pay to support their children. However, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics, her construal of the minimum wage earner is a little skewed.
The Department of Labor and Bureau of Labor Statistics web site reports that 75.6 million Americans were paid hourly in 2006 (almost 60% of the workforce). Of those 75.6 million hourly workers, only 1.7 million (or 2.2%) made minimum wage or less (some restaurant employees or employees in training make less). 1.7 million is a far cry from the 6.6 million Rep. Jackson Lee suggests in the Congressional Digest. Her claim of several million people earning a low minimum wage doesn’t seem to be factual.
Reps. Jackson Lee and Schakowsky paint a picture of a poor minority woman who struggles to make ends meet. The Bureau of Labor Statistics web site defines a much different person. About half of minimum wage earners (or those earning less) were ages 25 or younger; one quarter were ages 16-19. So, of the 143,099,000 some odd people who worked last year, only about ½% or 850,000 workers who earned minimum wage were actually over the age 25. The BLS reports that most minimum wage employees work part-time (less than 30 hours per week) and have never been married. Also, only 2% of hourly wage workers were black or Hispanic. Thus, the typical minimum wage earner appears more likely to be a high school or college student than a single mother raising children in poverty. A person struggling to feed a family would not choose to work part time. And, in these times of low unemployment, it seems unlikely that someone would have to settle for part time work.
According to the graph below created by the Employment Policies Institute, a majority of minimum wage earners live with their parents.

So who will benefit from the minimum wage law and the recent increase in the minimum wage rate? If employers will have to pay all employees prevailing minimum wage (whether high school student, college student, or struggling single parent), will they still look to the inexperienced and less educated or will they eliminate many of these unskilled labor positions altogether? In order to answer that question, it is important to understand the economic laws and their effects on the labor market.

The Negative Effects of the Minimum Wage Law on Unemployment
The effect due to the increase of the minimum wage is a typical example of the law of supply and demand. This law states that when the price of a product or service increases the demand decreases, the same thing happens in the job market where the price of labor goes up, the demand for that labor decreases.

This does not affect the majority of workers because their wage is above the minimum wage, but it does affect the teenagers and the minorities because of their low skill level and little work experience. These workers need to find entry level jobs in order to gain experience for finding a better paying job, to develop good work habits which enables them to become a more productive employee, and to create a sense of independence with self reliance to become meaningful member of society. Usually entry level jobs in the first year receive an average raise of 14 percent and move out of the minimum wage in nearly two-thirds of the workers. These opportunities will be taken away from them when small business is unable to afford the wage increases because they can not justify the low productivity entry level workers and the amount of training it will take to make them more productive. Most studies conclude that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, the teenage employment decreases by 1 to 3 percent. If you figure that the minimum wage will increase by 41 percent that means that the teenage unemployment will decrease by 4 to 12 percent.


The other problem that politicians forget to inform the public is that the people most likely to lose their jobs are the least educated; if all things being equal would an employer rather lay off someone with or without a high school diploma? A high minimum wage encourages teenage students to drop out of school and take jobs away from the less educated labor force. This also decreases the competitive workforce by encouraging people to enter the job market instead of pursuing a higher education. With the minorities being the ones with less education, or the lack of an English speaking parent at home, it is usually the poor minorities that suffer the most, The additional problem that the increased minimum wage encourages is racism. If by chance an employer is racist and now has to pay everyone the same wage, instead of hiring minorities at a lower rate, he will choose to hire the whites instead of the Mexicans or Hispanics.
There is also a ripple effect in raises for people who make more than the minimum wage in business. The people who make a wage just above minimum wage will be looking for a raise in order to justify their position in the company, which will set off a chain reaction for every other employee in that company. So now you have everyone making $2.10 more an hour, where does this money come from? If you raise the price of your product to pass along these wage increases, the company has a chance of losing their share of the market, but if you don’t raise the price then the increase will have to come out of your profits, which is not a good business practice either. Faced with these options the employer will either reduce the minimum wage positions and keep the current wage structure, or put a freeze on hiring as people retire which will put more pressure on the existing employees to work harder and produce more. Some of these problems will affect small business from being competitive with larger companies and will eventually go out of business. The exception to this negative ripple effect is the employees that are part of a union, their wage scale is based on the minimum wage and as soon as the wage is increased, everyone that belongs in that particular union gets a raise. This is one of the reasons that the large unions constantly lobby the politicians for the minimum wage increase.

The Negative Effects of the Minimum Wage Law on Poverty
Another area where the minimum wage law has gone awry is in addressing poverty. Minimum wage was designed to protect our lowest paid and entry level workers and keep them from needing to rely on welfare. Often unskilled, sometimes uneducated, minimum wage earners are paid just above the national poverty level, presently $10,210 for a single person . The most recent minimum wage increase was the first in over ten years. Prior to July 2007, minimum wage employees were earning only $5.15 per hour – hardly enough to support one person, let alone an entire family.
For those people who must support themselves or their families on low incomes, workers must evaluate whether it is better to seek a minimum wage job with little benefits or apply for public assistance. In many states, the value of cash assistance, food stamps, and Medicaid health coverage is worth more than the minimum wage.
In 1995 Michael Tanner, Stephen Moore, and David Hartman published a paper that examined the dollar value of welfare benefits and compared it to the minimum wage. For example, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the 1995 value of public assistance benefits was $17,189 annually or about $8.43 per hour – tax free. These benefits included: cash assistance, food stamps, Medicaid, housing assistance, utilities assistance, the WIC nutrition program, and the free commodities program. At that time the minimum wage was only $4.25 per hour. Obviously, a person eligible for welfare benefits has little incentive to work a minimum wage job.
Value of Welfare in Selected Cities, 1995
City, State Welfare Benefit Level($)a Local Income Tax Rate (%)b Pretax Income Equivalent($)c Hourly Equivalent
New York, NY 23,743 4.20 30,700 14.76
Baltimore, MD 19,543 2.50 23,600 11.35
Detroit, MI 18,580 3.00 22,700 10.91
Indianapolis, IN 18,260 0.70 21,100 10.14
Cleveland, OH 17,631 2.00 20,000 9.62
Pittsburgh, PA 17,189 2.88 20,000 9.62

In a transcript of a Congressional testimony presented by Joanne Spetz, research fellow of the Public Policy Institute of California, to the United States House Committee on Education and the Work Force, expounds upon the effects of minimum wage. She and her coauthors found “… that a 10 percent increase in minimum wages is associated with a 2 percent increase in welfare caseloads” (PPIC, 1) . Spetz explains the reasons for this positive increase as being a reduction in job openings and increased competition for higher paying minimum wage jobs. Instead of enticing people to enter the labor force and keep people out of poverty, minimum wage increases keep people on welfare and force more people to apply for public assistance benefits.
Recommendations
It is difficult to make recommendations on a situation that seems to have no answers. This problem will not go away because in our free society there will always be a segment of the population at the bottom of the financial curve. This is part of the inherent system of democracy which provides the opportunity for each of us to become successful, but all at different levels.
Perhaps instead of minimum wage increases, the government could implement a program giving training and education incentives, thereby enabling people to earn higher wages. The government could also allow tax incentives for businesses to operate apprenticeship programs. This would afford employers the ability to train workers for entry level positions instead of eliminating them.
A “living wage” versus a minimum wage might be more practical. Instead of random increases at the whim of our politicians, a living wage could be set by local Consumer Price Indexes instead of establishing a wage across the board for the entire country. There also needs to be an evaluation of the welfare system to see if there are real incentives for people to look for work instead of government transfers.
Finally, there ought to be a resolution of how we make foreign immigrants a legal productive part of our society and to integrate them into our workforce. While it is a noble obligation to help the poor and disadvantaged, it should be approached in such a way that these people are helping themselves, regardless of political agendas.

Conclusion
After reviewing all the facts and figures we have come to the conclusion that the decision to raise the minimum wage is more politically motivated than a moral justification to help the poor. Throughout history it has been proven repeatedly that by raising the minimum wage the outcomes are harmful to the economy and the people that it was intended to help. There is a direct relationship between minimum wage increases and a higher level of unemployment and an increase to welfare caseloads. This increase in unemployment affects the poor and the disadvantaged by not allowing the job market to hire the teenagers and minorities at the entry level positions. The minimum wage increase also puts a financial burden on businesses because of the ripple effect it will have with the wage structure of the higher paying positions. The end results will be the elimination of low level job positions which could eventually disrupt the labor force and cause a recession. The minimum wage increase sounds like the right moral decision to make, but with the economy slipping into a potential recession, this act could add the fuel to the fire that would make the recession a reality.


WORKS CITED
Cox, Jeff. Minimum Wage, Marginal Impact, January 26, 2007, http://money.cnn.com
Widipedia, the free encyclopedia. Minimum Wage Economics, October, 2007, http://en.wikipedia.org
Cox, Jeff. Minimum Wage, Marginal Impact, January 26, 2007, http://money.cnn.com
Kibbe, Matthew. The Minimum Wage: Washington’s Perennial Myth, Policy Analysis No.106, Cato Institute, http://cato.org
Wicks, Jeannette. Measuring the Full Impact of Minimum and Living Wage Laws, Dollars and Sense. June 2006, http://www.dollarsandsense.org
National Center for Policy Analysis. Why the Minimum Wage Law Causes Unemployment, NCPA Study #190, http://www.ncpa.org
Labor Law Center. Federal Minimum Wage Increase for 2007, Home page. November 08, 2007 http://www.laborlawcenter.com
"Should Congress Pass H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act? Pro." Congressional Digest 86.3 (Mar. 2007): 90-94. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Murrysville Community Library, Murrysville, PA. 30 October 2007. .
"Should Congress Pass H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act? Pro." Congressional Digest 86.3 (Mar. 2007): 78-82. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Murrysville Community Library, Murrysville, PA. 30 October 2007. .
“Federal Minimum Wage – Nominal vs. Real.” Graph. 25 Nov 2007. .
"Should Congress Pass H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act? Pro." Congressional Digest 86.3 (Mar. 2007): 88-88. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Murrysville Community Library, Murrysville, PA. 30 October 2007. .
“Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2006.” U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2 March 2007. 27 November 2007. .
“Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey.” U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. 27 November 2007. . NOTE: Self-made chart using data specs may not be available
“Distribution of Workers Affected by Proposed $5.15 Minimum Wage.” Graph. 06 December 2007. .
“Wage-Labour.” Graph. 06 December 2007. .
Labor Law Center. Federal Minimum Wage Increase for 2007, Home page. November 08, 2007 http://www.laborlawcenter.com
“Real Minimum Wage and Teenage Unemployment.” Graph. 06 December 2007. .
Kibbe, Matthew. The Minimum Wage: Washington’s Perennial Myth, Policy Analysis No.106, Cato Institute, http://cato.org
Economic Policy Institute, Minimum Wage Facts at a Glance. April 2007, http://www.epinet.org
“2007 HHS Federal Poverty Guidelines.” The United States Department of Health and Human Services. 24 January 2007. 11 November 2007.
Tanner, Michael, Stephen Moore, and David Hartman. “The Work Versus Welfare Trade-Off: An Analysis of the Total Level of Welfare Benefits by State.” 19 September 1995. CatoInstitute.org. 3 December 2007. .
Tanner, Michael, Stephen Moore, and David Hartman. “Value of Welfare in Selected Cities, 1995.” Table. 06 December 2007. .
Public Policy Institute of California. Congressional Testimony on Minimum Wage. October 1999. 3 December 2007. .

Monday, December 10, 2007

Reflection Paper: Why Seton Hill

On Saturdays, I rise before the rest of the house, apply make up for the first time all week, and escape before my husband or children can barrage me with requests for cooking waffles or searching for soccer cleats. While driving the familiar 16 miles to Greensburg, I listen to NPR or PBS (what a nice change from the “Sponge Bob” theme song) and catch up on current happenings or listen to soothing classical music. Once I turn off the busy road to ascend the long, windy, tree-lined driveway, my tense posture relaxes (you know that feeling when you no longer have a child or two metaphorically connected to your hip). I marvel at the sight of the old Hogwarts-like buildings, the serene gardens, and the “ohm”-quietness of the place. I park in my favorite spot and soon others silently join me as we huff and puff up the seemingly unending temple-like stairs (my exercise for the week). And so begins “me” time.

Like many others (I am finding), I did not finish college straight out of high school. It was not that I could not or did not want to be in college. I was unable to narrow down my broad interests and commit to a program of study. After taking classes in Anthropology, Studio Art, Computer Programming, Cosmetology, and Graphic Design, I became even more confused about my calling in life. Maybe I could be an archaeologist that specialized in the creation of computer animated dinosaur documentaries (and do nails on the side). Disheartened (especially since that was before the time of much computer animation), I eventually followed the advice of my father and began taking business classes at the community college for the sake of practicality.

Business filled my need for variety. At first, the classes seemed easy, but then I realized it was because they were second nature. Eventually they became more challenging, but they always “clicked” with me. After achieving my associate’s degree in 2005 (11 years after graduating from high school), I realized it was not enough. I wanted more. So, I began searching for four year colleges.

Initially, I thought I would return to the University of Pittsburgh. There was a campus close to me and at least I could count on transferring in those classes I took back right out of high school. I scheduled a visit to Pitt Greensburg and eventually registered for classes. Maybe it was because I was 10+ years older than most of students or maybe it was the slow and impersonal response from the financial aid department, but in the fall of 2005, I got cold feet and decided to drop my classes.

That same fall, I took a job as an office manager at a tax preparation franchise. While I enjoyed my work and my coworkers, the prospect of working for ten dollars an hour for the rest of my life with limited responsibility was depressing. Because it never really paid for me to work to begin with, we decided to squeeze in one more child before I made a commitment to a long term career. We always wanted three kids and I certainly was not getting any younger. Soon I would have another little one on the way and a guaranteed long-standing gig as a stay at home mom.

Experiencing pregnancy hormones and a 30th birthday crisis, I had a moment of panic and applied to Seton Hill University while five months pregnant. While I hardly knew a thing about Seton Hill, I just went with my instinct, perhaps for the first time in my life. I met with an academic advisor (who was kind, sweet, and personable), registered for a few classes, and waited for August 23, 2006 – my first class, three weeks prior to the scheduled induction of my third child.

While I had contacted my Hebrew Scriptures professor in advance to inform him of the situation, I don’t think it actually registered with him until I walked into class 8 ½ months pregnant. My round belly wouldn’t fit into the little desk so I had to turn the entire unit sideways in order to face the front of the class. As I had Saturday afternoon classes that semester, I could not avoid being seen by traditional students and I encountered more than a few raised eyebrows. My classmates, however, acted as though it was business as usual.

If it had not been for my fellow adult students, I wouldn’t have lasted. Imagine going back to school at 30, 40, or even 50 amongst 18 and 20 year olds. Many of us have kids and most of us have jobs. We all complain about our workload and lack of time. We share hints about what a certain professor looks for in a presentation and whom we liked best for certain classes. We lend money to each other when the vending machine is being finicky. When one of us misses a class you can count on another student copying the notes and filling you in on the lecture. Students in the Adult Degree Program are my friends and my support group. I trust them, I enjoy them, and I feel compelled to support them as they have supported me. They are like family.

Now as I prepare for my last year at Seton Hill as an undergrad student, I look back on my progress, my experiences, and my growth as a person. Because I had so many years of work experience, I never understood the necessity to obtain a Bachelor’s degree. Now that I am almost finished, I made the decision to seek my Master’s degree. The combination of liberal arts core classes (history, science, math, the arts, and religion) has made me a well-rounded person (and fun at parties). No amount of time spent on the job can make up for this fundamental learning experience. It becomes embedded into your person.

What have I gained from my time at Seton Hill? I am sure I cannot even begin to comprehend all that I have been given. I have matured. I have learned. I have thought. I have applied. I have created. I have commitment. I have confidence. I have a chance. Thank you, SHU.

.

Friday, October 19, 2007

Microeconomics: The Housing Market


The Housing Market: Boom, Bust, and Oh Boy!
By Steve Shurick and Jenn Weir

For Dr. Doina Vlad
Principles of Microeconomics
SEC 101-98
Seton Hill University
October 13, 2007



For years, economists have argued whether or not a housing market “bubble” existed in the United States. Some believed over-inflated home prices were limited to certain regions while others saw a problem that would affect the aggregate real estate market. Now, in the midst of falling home values, rampant foreclosures, the collapse of the subprime market, and the risk of a real-estate-induced recession, experts neatly conclude, “we had a bubble”[1]. As access to financing becomes more difficult and as manufacturers and retailers predict consumer spending will decrease in 2008 because of the subprime shockwave, the rollercoaster that is our economy is sure to take a down-turn. In its wake, we will find a surplus of overvalued homes, lenders in bankruptcy, homeowners who are in over their heads, and investors backing out of the market at a rapid pace. Could this be the precursor to a market crash? We hope not, but in the mean time, let us explore the history of the United States real estate and lending markets, how this recent bubble happened, where we are now, and what the future might hold for our economy.



History of Real Estate and Lending

From the late 1800’s the real estate market has had it shares of ups and downs. Many substantial increases and decreases of values were due to major world events. Some of these were World War I, The Great Depression, and World War II. When World War I began, the real estate market dropped dramatically. This was because many of our citizens were either fighting in the war or involved in some other way. Our economy was driven by the war and supplying for it. The demand for purchasing a home was decreasing. This continued for a few years until the war was over. U.S. citizens started to purchase more homes and the economy began to rise. This lasted only a few years until The Great Depression took hold of the country. Once again, this brought the market down and kept it relatively low through World War II. This period was one of the lowest in the U.S real estate market. This was in direct correlation to the overall U.S. economy. At the end of World War II, market values and home sales began to rise once again. From 1942 to 1946 the real estate market values increased 54 percent. From this point the market stayed relatively the same by fluctuation within 10 to 12 percent until 1997. From that point until now, the real estate market has jumped 83 percent! There was a rapid increase in that 10-year span. How could the market change so much in such a short period of time? There are many factors which contributed to this housing “boom”.



Housing Bubble

According to the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, the term “bubble,” when applied to the housing market, refers to a period of time when home prices are inflated beyond their real value. [3] These prices inflate disproportionately in comparison to income and other cost-of-living indicators. Starting around the year 2000 until about 2006, areas such as Phoenix, Las Vegas, Hawaii, D.C., parts of California and Florida, and other regions experienced an increase in home prices of more than 80%[4] while the national median household income only rose approximately 10% in that same time.[5]



[6] - U.S. Hot Spots in Home Prices


There are several theories about how this bubble was created. But first, it is important to recognize the conditions of the economy just prior to the erratic rise in home prices. Similar to the real estate bubble, the United States was involved in another speculative economic bubble in the late 90’s: the dot com bubble. By March of 2000, investments in online companies had skyrocketed and the Nasdaq (the technology index market) soared to above 5,000 points. Investing in technology-based businesses was all the rage. However, by October of 2002, the Nasdaq closed at barely over 1,100.[7] What happened to the U.S. technology index in that time?

Like most bubbles, the market in question was over-valued, difficult to predict from the supply and demand standpoint, and prices swung uncontrollably. When investors got wind of problems in the market (the businesses they were investing in were superficially valued and generally worthless), most jumped ship. It did not take long for them to find a replacement. On the Barron’s Internet site, Yale economist Robert Shiller offers his take on the bursting of the dot com bubble and its outcome:

“Once stocks fell, real estate became the primary outlet for the speculative frenzy that the stock market had unleashed. Where else could plungers apply their newly acquired trading talents? The materialistic display of the big house also has become a salve to bruised egos of disappointed stock investors. These days, the only thing that comes close to real estate as a national obsession is poker”[8] (Laing).

For many people, their home is their biggest asset. Most people buy a home, live there for several years, home values appreciate, and come selling time, the happy seller thinks they have made money on the deal. In some cases, this is actually true (though the time-value of money and inflation rarely enter their minds, but that is another project). Because of this, real estate is often thought of as a solid and lucrative investment. People believed housing prices would never fall and that buying property was a sound practice. After investing in something as intangible as an Internet company, people wanted something secure. Two additional important market conditions influenced the coming of the real estate investment “froth”: the brief recession following the dot com crash and the tragedies of September 11.
The National Bureau of Economic Research identified a recession beginning in March of 2001 and reaching its trough in November of that same year.[9] This meant, surprisingly, the United States was undergoing expansion only two months after the events of September 11. After such a blow to our nation and our economy, how did we recover so soon? This bout of recession and national tragedy spurred the government to take matters into its own hands. The Federal Reserve Board lowered interest rates 11 times in 2001.[10] By June of 2003, interest rates were lower than they had been since the 1950s. [11]

How does this all relate to the housing bubble? The dot com crash soured people on trendy tech stocks. To revive the economy, the feds lowered interest rates to historic lows. And, people needed an outlet for their investing itch. Voila! The housing bubble begins. It is not quite that simple, however. It is theorized there were other factors involved. Reality “flipping” shows on cable television stations may have spawned a “Do It Yourself” rehab-and-sell band wagon. Unfortunately, not every flipper has enough business savvy or DIY knowledge to turn a profit in turn-key real estate transactions. “Creative” mortgage products and lenient lending standards allowed even those with a poor credit history to obtain a home loan. And let’s face it, most people would rather owning a home is the American dream.

So how bad is the housing market? Right now, 4.5 million homes are sitting on the market for ten months on average.[12] Compare that to the height of the real estate bubble in 2005 when only 2.8 million homes stayed on the market for roughly half that amount of time. This surplus of homes has created a downward spiral in housing prices. The more houses on the market, the more buyers can choose from, the more competitive the seller must be, and the more the prices are lowered to interest potential buyers.

http://housingbubble.jparsons.net/
[13] - UNABLE TO DOWNLOAD CHART, PLEASE ACCESS ABOVE LINK
Housing prices began their steep incline at about the turn of the century.


Blame (and Demand) Shifting

In a recent issue of Money magazine, authors Stephen Gandel, Amanda Gengler, and Paul Keegan, blame four groups of people for our real estate woes in their article, “Scenes from a Bubble.”[14] On the hook are the buyers, the brokers, the appraisers, and the investors. While the authors tactfully explain how the complexities of financing a mortgage can be “a steep learning curve” for the average homeowner, the underlying message is that these consumers need to make informed decisions before signing on the dotted line (Gandel, Gengler, and Keegan, 117-118). Unfortunately, many home buyers sought the advice of mortgage brokers who did not act in the borrower’s best interests. To get these people into the homes of their dreams, many mortgage brokers turned to risky financing and subprime lending.

With new lending strategies, mortgage agents were able to provide financing for many people who could not and would not before. Banks were still providing traditional loans to excellent clients with below prime rates. However, there was an entire slew of people who did not qualify for traditional mortgages because of blemishes on their credit reports, insufficient income history, or other reasons. Banks, mortgage companies, and brokers tapped into this market by providing financing to willing customers at higher costs. Lenders were using variable rate loans with initially low rates and payments to lure borrowers. What many lending agents did not explain was how much these seemingly low monthly payments can actually rise with a few additional percentage points when the rates were reset.

In January 2001 the prime rate was at 9.50 percent. This was the highest point it has been in years. The market was becoming a bit dangerous. From this point we began to see a change. From January 2001 to January 2002 the prime rate dropped to 4.75 percent! This was a 50 percent decrease and it didn’t stop there. From January 2002 to July 2003 the prime rate dropped to a record low of 4.00 percent. This created a huge stir in the real estate market. More people began refinancing their homes and more people could afford to purchase or build a new home.

As you will see from the following graph, interest rates plummeted to 4.00% in 2003 and 2004:
http://www.moneycafe.com/library/prime.htm#graph
Copyright 2007 MoneyCafe.com
Source: Federal Reserve Board[15]

Within this two year span of the prime rate being in the four percent range, lenders had much room to work. They could easily sell an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM). With a teaser rate of prime or better and the prime rate making little change, why wouldn’t a home buyer want to save lot of money and have a low payment? Unfortunately, many buyers chose to finance with an ARM and because the rates since reset, they cannot afford the increased payments.
An often overlooked culprit in this bubble calamity is the real estate appraiser. Independent appraisers are hired to formulate a fair market value of a property. The authors of “Scenes from a Bubble” explain that appraisals are needed for the bank to make the loan, to insure against fraud as required by regulators and mortgage investors, and to give the buyer a sense of what the property is really worth.

In Western Pennsylvania, real estate appraisers and home inspectors are a dime a dozen, so the market would seem extremely competitive. What lengths would an appraiser go to in order to get the job? Gandel, Gengler, and Keegan have uncovered how lenders and appraisers sometimes work in cahoots (119-120). They reference a scheme that loan officers or mortgage brokers have used to obtain their desired loan value. A loan officer might contact several different appraisers asking them to supply a value of a given property for a certain dollar amount or higher regardless of the homes actual value. For example, one broker would send an email to five or six appraisers, asking for an appraisal in upwards of $365,000 so that her client could refinance. Unfortunately, the property’s real value was probably far less than that.
This essentially created a bidding war among appraisers and superficially drove up the housing values. An overvalued appraisal would allow the lender or broker to offer a homeowner or home buyer additional money supplied by the home’s “equity.” Now that home prices in many areas have cooled or worse, depreciated, many property owners owe more on their mortgage than their house is worth.

Gandel, Gengler, and Keegan also blame investors for the housing market folly. Bond traders had their hands in real estate through the stock market. Investors are buying and selling “bonds that are backed by the mortgage payments of ordinary homeowners (Gandel, Gengler, and Keegan, 121). As we saw from the dot come bubble, this fad is now over.
A different type of investor has contributed to both the inflation of home prices and also the high rate of mortgage defaults. Commonly referred to as “house flippers” or just “flippers,” these people purchase a property either with a traditional mortgage, an ARM, or with other investors, and they have made up a sizeable amount of property purchases during the housing boom. The aim of a flipper is to get in and out of a house in the shortest amount of time, spending only enough money to make the house “move-in” condition. In the midst of a surplus of homes for sale, it is no longer so simple. Houses are sitting on the market for months at a time, zapping the flippers profits.

Les Christie of CNNMoney.com has found that in the month of June in Nevada, “32% of all prime mortgages in default and 24% of subprime defaults were on non-owner occupied properties.”[16] In other words, investment properties. While walking away from a house is never easy, a flipper can do so more painlessly than a family who actually lives in the home.
Surprising contributors to this boom bust are the builders or developers. In an article by Mara Der Hovanesian of Business Week magazine, she explains how builders got in on the mortgage lending business as a way to boost new-build home sales.[17] Backed by investment bankers, builders were able to broker the same risky mortgage products to customers desiring new-build homes. This enabled builders to move inventory faster and provide “one-stop” shopping to their clients. Unfortunately, like the situation with the mortgage brokers and subprime lenders, builders often offered loans to people with less than desirable credit and sometimes encouraged prospective buyers to falsify information on their loan applications. Many borrowers have also complained that these builders/lenders neglected to spell out the terms of their loans and underestimated expenses such as property taxes and home owners association fees. The Securities and Exchange Commission, the Justice Department, and several Attorney General Offices are investigating complaints regarding builders who have mislead homebuyers.

The Aftermath of the “Burst”

From July 2004 to September 2007, the prime increased to 8.25 percent. This has created a dramatic increase in mortgage payments. Most people with an adjustable rate mortgage or any type of mortgage become comfortable with their payment. When it changes by a few hundred dollars per month, this can severely change a person’s entire financial situation. The Option ARM is loan that must be concerted carefully. Many people took the option because of the low payments that were set up for the first few months. The minimum monthly payments consisted of initially low rates, which for the most part didn’t cover all interest owed creating a negative amortization.

Why would anyone consider this option of paying back so much in interest without touching the principle? A thought that buyers relied on was that the market was booming so rapidly. Even if they did not pay into their equity, they could just sell the home in a few years and still make a profit.

Unfortunately, the market did not continue the path it was following these past few years. As the market started to decline, the interest was continually increasing while the housing values are going down. Now, many people are barely staying afloat or walking away from these properties all together. If this isn’t bad enough, some buyers could also be subject to prepayment penalties. These usually consist of penalty of 3% of the balance within the first year, 2% in the second year and 1% in the third year. There is really no positive outlook if someone has been caught up in this situation. The only hope is to get out before more money is lost.

For example, San Diego, one of the priciest areas in the United States, boasted a median home value of $579,000 in 2006[18]. It is astonishing to learn, in spite of this, that the median family income in San Diego is only $59,775[19]. In August of 2007, some areas of San Diego saw a 14% decrease in home values.[20] Imagine paying over $500,000 for a home and the following year it is worth $70,000 less than what you paid!

Many people caught up in this disaster were forced to file for foreclosure. In 2006 there were 1.2 million homes that had foreclosure filings. This number was up 42 percent from 2005. With so many people creating problems on their credit, this also sets up problems for purchases in years to come. A foreclose is one of the worst black spots that can appear on a credit report. It takes many years to rebuild a credit score after taking such a great hit.

The Bigger Picture

The results of risky lending practices are killing both the housing and lending markets. More and more borrows are unable to make their adjustable rate mortgage payments every time there is a reset. Homeowners who are trying to get out from under their heavy mortgage(s – if they have two) cannot sell their house because of the surplus of homes on the market. Foreclosure rates in August were up 36% from July, with a total of 243,947 foreclosure filings in the month of August alone.[21] [As of October, this number has jumped to 49% from September]. Subprime lenders are declaring bankruptcy, going out of business, and slimming down. The largest subprime lender in the United States, Countrywide Financial, is planning to lay off more than 20% of its workforce which tallies to about 12,000 employees.[22]

While people living in a stable housing market might scoff at the messes in New York, Las Vegas, Atlantic City, Sarasota, Riverside, Phoenix, Miami, and other areas in crisis, the rest of our economy could suffer. We have already seen more than 21,000 job cuts in the housing and finance sectors just in August alone and with the subprime meltdown, more jobs are sure to be lost. With the loss of these high-paying jobs comes the loss of consumer spending. In an article written by the Christian Science Monitor for MSN Money, they speculate that other areas of the economy will begin to hurt, too.

“Many of these jobs in finance and real estate are relatively high-paying, which has helped car dealerships and high-end retailers. To be sure, all sorts of jobs are affected, because when a house changes hands, a small army of brokers, appraisers, pest-control inspectors, title searchers and lawyers send out invoices.”[23]

With all of these people losing business or becoming unemployed, it is not surprising that The Economist magazine reports big box retailer, Wal-mart, is offering sorry predictions for its profits for the remainder of 2007. The article adds further doom by stating that “sagging confidence, as a result of falling markets and troubles in the banks, would only make matters worse.”[24]

The Economist sees another, larger problem. Foreign investors in the United States bank funds and the stock market are panicked. They report that “margin calls have forced hedge funds to raise cash that has often meant purging their most liquid assets, such as oil. Speculative selling, as well as fears about the health of the American economy, have dragged oil prices well below their peak…”

There have even been predictions of a recession. Dean Baker, co-director of the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research, foresaw what USA Today writer Barbara Hagenbaugh calls a “housing-led recession.”[25] CEO Richard Syron of Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) is also boldly forecasting a “40-45% chance of a recession” because of falling dollar prices and rising oil prices – typical inflation indicators of a possible economy downturn.[26]

Help for Homeowners

With such a glum outlook for the housing and mortgage markets, not to mention our entire economy, what can be done to fix our current problems and prevent such an occurrence in the future? Ours is not a free market economy and the government has deemed it necessary to step in and bail us out (though many argue Greenspan and the feds were the reason for this mess to begin with because of the how long interest rates stayed so low). Government agencies have already taken initiatives to help those directly affected by the housing and lending mess. There are several other programs in the works which will not only aid homeowners in need, but will also assist future home buyers in making sound borrowing decisions.

Senior writer for CNN Money.com, Jeanne Sahadi, reports about the types of programs that are available now or could become available in the future for troubled homeowners.[27] First, the Federal Housing Administration has set up a program called the “FHA Secure Act.” This act will grant many current ARM mortgage holders the ability to refinance when they were not able to do so before because of formerly strict FHA refinancing guidelines.

This act will also give relief to some homeowners who are behind on their mortgage payments. The FHA has begun making interest free loans to borrowers who are four to 12 months behind. These loans will make borrowers current with their lenders and do not need paid back until the home is sold or the mortgage paid off. Another option offered by the FHA for delinquents is the ability to refinance into an FHA loan. Sahadi states that “even with the premiums FHA charges, an FHA-insured loan could save a borrower $100 or more a month for every $100,000 borrowed compared to the payments they'd owe under an adjustable-rate mortgage that readjusts upward by 3 percentage points.”

In the works are more efforts to help homeowners in distress. Currently, homeowners with jumbo mortgages would be ineligible to participate in the FHA Secure Act program because the loan limits are in the $360 thousand range for a single family home. The House is reviewing a bill to raise that limit to $417 or $500 thousand so more borrowers facing financial difficulties will be able to take advantage of refinancing with an FHA-insured loan. Another hurdle the FHA plans to address is waiving the 3% equity rule or cash equivalent. To those homeowners experiencing negative amortization, this would eliminate a potentially huge down payment in order for them to refinance.

Another problem for homeowners who have filed for foreclosure or for those who have worked with their lenders to cancel a portion of their debt is the taxable income realized under IRS tax law. According to the IRS web site, “under the tax law, if the debt wiped out through foreclosure exceeds the value of the property, the difference is normally taxable income.”[28] Sometimes this “income” is enough to push a taxpayer into the next tax bracket.

For example, a person who owns an overvalued home cannot afford his monthly payments and cannot sell for what he owes on his mortgage. He decides to walk. He files for foreclosure, the bank takes possession, and he is no longer responsible for this loan. The bank is unable to sell the house for what is owed on it and takes a moderate loss at auction. Come tax time, the original borrower will receive a 1099-C Cancellation of Debt form from his prior lender for the amount the bank could not recoup on his outstanding loan. He will have to treat this as taxable income and depending on the amount forgiven, he will most likely owe tax liability.

President Bush’s administration has identified this problem and is attempting to work with Congress to make provisions to the tax code.[29] On the White House web site, the transcript of President Bush’s discussion regarding homeownership financing unveils his plans to pass legislation which will help exempt taxpayers with cancelled real estate debt. Bush believes this will “make it easier for people to refinance their homes and stay in their homes.”

Bush also announced that his administration is working on a “foreclosure avoidance initiative” which would link “government sponsored enterprises,” like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, as well as FHA-insured lenders to homeowners in need of foreclosure counseling and refinancing. In an attempt to prevent future lending problems, Bush is also moving forward with tighter regulations for the mortgage industry. Banking regulators are working to make mortgage disclosure statements more comprehensible. Bush believes that a “better informed” borrower could be the key to prevention. Bush would also like to see more stringent lending practices so that borrowers are not given mortgages more than they can afford. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and other agencies have already launched a full-scale criminal investigation into the mortgage industry.

The Bush administration has also formed a coalition to try to help the two million borrowers who will be facing the ARM reset at the end of the year. Joined by mortgage service companies, counseling agencies, investors, and large trade organizations, the “HOPE NOW” initiative will work to help borrowers stay in their homes. More is to be announced about how this coalition plans to address the issues of falling home prices and burdensome ARM loans.[30]

Another suggestion being called for by both homeowners and lenders is to freeze the ARM rates. In general, banks do not like to repossess a home because it looks bad on their books, they usually do not recoup all of their court and filing costs, and with housing prices going so low, they could end up upside down on the deal. It would be in their best interests to work out a deal with the homeowner to keep them on track with their payments and to keep them in their homes. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair comments on the CNN Money web site: “Keep it at the starter rate. Convert it into a fixed rate. Make it permanent. And get on with it.”[31] It is unlikely that this will occur, however, as investors and borrowers with fixed mortgages would be slighted in the process.


An Opportunity Presents Itself

If you are a person looking to invest in the near future, it is wise to take caution. Even though there are still good investments to be made, make sure you do the necessary research before investing your funds. As the real estate market declines, it could be a good time for buyers to pick up a home. Keep in mind, however, the market could go lower.

As we see how fast the housing market increased and decreased we must realize that this will most likely occur again. The market will decrease to a certain point and the homes for sale will generally become lower and market should be able to rebound. It would need to keep a smaller appreciating level so this bubble does not occur again.

Hope for the Future?

Economists, businesses, and government officials are split about what the future has in store for home prices, the lending industry, and our economy in general. Predictions range from double-digit housing decline to a widespread market cooling to a two to five year full recovery. While it is impossible to predict the outcome of the economy, we are sure to see more government intervention in the lending sector and more public programs aimed to educate potential borrowers. Will these efforts prevent another housing bubble or mortgage market crash? Hopefully, but to be sure, it is up to us to be wise consumers and educated citizens.




Works Cited
[1] “2007 Subprime mortgage financial crisis.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 24 Sep 2007, 05:45 UTC. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 27 Sep 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Subprime_mortgage_financial_crisis&oldid=159956145>.
[2] Shiller, Robert. “A History of Home Values.” Graph. 9 Oct 2007. .
[3] “bubble.” The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005. 26 Sep. 2007. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bubble>.
[4] “United States housing bubble.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 26 Sep 2007, 21:03 UTC. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 27 Sep 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_housing_bubble&oldid=160552422>.
[5] United States. U.S. Census Bureau. USA Statistics in Brief–Income. 20 Dec 2006. 27 Sep 2007. .
[6] Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. “USA home appreciation 1998 – 2006.” Chart. Wikipedia.org. 30 Aug 2007. 7 Oct 2007.
[7] Knight, Matthew. “Spinning the web of knowledge.” CNN.com. 29 Jan 2007. CNN. 27 Sep 2007. .
[8] Laing, Jonathon. “The Bubble’s New Home.” Barron’s Online. 27 Sep 2007. .
[9] Business Cycle Dating Committee. “July 17, 2003 Announcement: of business cycle trough/end of last recession.” National Bureau of Economic Research. 17 July 2003. 27 Sep 2007. .
[10] The Federal Reserve Board. Monetary Policy: Open Market Operations. 18 Sep 2007. 27 Sep 2007. .
[11] The Federal Reserve Board. Federal Reserve Statistical Release: Historical Data. 27 Sep 2007. 27 Sep 2007. .
[12] “EHS Report.” Realtor.org. 2007. 27 Sep 2007. .
[13] Parsons, Jim. “United States House Prices.” Graph. 09 Oct 2007. .
[14] Gandel, Stephen, Amanda Gengler, with Paul Keegan. “Scenes from a Bubble.” Money. May 2007: 115+.
[15] “Prime Rate Historical Graph and Chart.” MoneyCafe.com. Chart. 18 Sept 2007. 28 Sept 2007. .
[16] Christie, Les. “Flippers fuel foreclosures.” MSNMoney.com. 20 Aug 2007. 10 Oct 2007. .
[17] Der Hovanesian, Mara. “Bonfire of the Builders.” Business Week. 13 Aug 2007. 27 Sep 2007. .
[18] The Associated Press. “Why you can’t afford a home.” MSN Money. 12 Sep 2007, 12:51PM ET. 27 Sept 2007. <>.
[19] “Money Magazine: Best Places to Live in 2006: San Diego, CA Snapshot.” CNN Money.com. 27 Sep 2007. .
[20] “San Diego Union Tribune Zip Code Chart for Home Sales Recorded in August 2007.” DQNews.com. 28 Sep 2007. .
[21] Viega, Alex. “U.S. Foreclosures Double in August.” Time. 18 Sep 2007. 27 Sep 2007. .
[22] Cox, Jeff. “Subprime layoffs head for record.” CNNMoeny.com. 19 Sep 2007, 10:45AM ET. 28 Sep 2007. .
[23] Christian Science Monitor. “Mortgage Mess Claims New Victims.” MSN Money. 23 Aug 2007 1:23PM ET. 28 Sep 2007. .
[24] “Mortgage Flu.” The Economist. 16 August 2007.
[25] Hagenbaugh, Barbara. “Growth or Recession in 2007?” USA Today.com. 26 Dec 2006 1:32AM ET. 29 Sep 2007. .
[26] Schaefer, Steve. “Could Housing Market Herald Recession?” Forbes.com 28 Sep 2007. 7 Oct 2007. .
[27] Sahadi, Jeanne. “Refi Rescue.” CNN Money.com 12 Sep 2007. 7 Oct 2007. .
[28] Internal Revenue Service. United States Department of the Treasury. “Foreclosure Tax Relief Available to Many.” IRS.gov. 17 Sep 2007. 7 Oct 2007. .
[29] “President Bush Discusses Homeownership Financing.” WhiteHouse.gov. 31 Aug 2007. 7 October 2007. .
[30] The Associated Press. “White House to help mortgage holders.” CNN Money.com. 10 Oct 2007. 10 Oct 2007. .
[31] Sahadi, Jeanne. “FDIC to Mortgage Servicers: Freeze ARM rates.” CNNMoney.com. 9 Oct 2007. 10 Oct 2007. .
Isidore, Chris. “Realtors: Home price slump through ’08”. CNNMoney.com. 11 Sep. 2007.
.
Christie, Les. “Trapped by the Mortgage Meltdown.” Money Magazine. Oct. 2007

Monday, July 30, 2007

Critical Thinking and Writing Assignment: Writing Self Assessment

I have to admit, when I learned I had to take Seton Hill University’s Seminar in Thinking and Writing, I was nervous. My forte is business communications: writing clear and concise memos and reports, letters that are short and to the point, and procedural manuals that utilize very little critical thinking. The type of writing expected in an English composition course requires introspection and deep analytical thought, which is much different than with what I am familiar. Although this course proved to be as difficult as I initially thought, I feel my writing skills have improved noticeably.
The most challenging process was overcoming the critical thinking aspect. As an unruly teenager, I had no problem questioning authority, teachers, and my parents. As I became a mature adult, I realized that by preaching my unconventional beliefs, I sometimes isolated myself from people. To fit in with my community, to be accepted by my family, and to set examples for my children, I subdued this way of thinking and tried to function like the rest of society. I began to view things not in “black and white” or wrong or right, but in objective, boring gray.
So years after trying to suppress my probing nature, I found myself needing to regain critical thinking skills and recapture a voice I had long ignored. The objectives of this course forced me to get back in touch with my analytical attitude so I could see cultural issues for what they really were. By discussing these issues with my classmates, I realized everyone has a different perspective and it was all right if we did not all agree on the issues, as long as we were respectful of one another’s opinions.
Another area I struggled with was organization, which is usually one of my strong points. In composition writing, it was hard for me to organize all my thoughts into one central, fluid idea because I have so many differing thoughts about the subject. It would often inhibit me from getting my paper started. The “free writing” technique and the practice of outlining were probably most valuable in my writing process.
Free writing helped me to get started on this paper, something I wish I had tried in previous papers. I did not try to correct my grammar halfway through a sentence or even keep similar thoughts in the same paragraph. I just wrote whatever came to mind in whatever order it surfaced. Not until I had several notebook pages did I attempt to enter it into my word processing program and I did not make any revisions until all my thoughts were typed out. Prior to trying this technique, I would just sit and stare at a blank word processing page waiting for something to come to me. I also felt pressure to produce a squeaky clean, beautifully formatted and finished paper from scratch in one sitting. By free writing first, this stress was eliminated.
Outlining the main ideas helped my papers to become better organized. I could see the visual succession of my thoughts in a coherent order. It became the template for my first draft and it was easier to incorporate all the tidbits of information that composed my papers. Microsoft Word’s comment feature was also very helpful by allowing me to keep track of my sources, set up citations, and temporarily store pieces of writing for later use.
After figuring out how to get a better start on my writing, the revision process became much easier. I learned that sometimes it is best to walk away from a paper for an hour or even a few days and come back to it later. I have been able to catch mistakes this way and it keeps my ideas from getting stale.
My favorite piece of writing was the research paper because I was able to choose a topic that I am passionate about and I enjoyed the actual research process. My topic had an abundance of information available so I had to be very selective in choosing my sources, trying to use those that would provide the most impact. The oral presentation was my least favorite activity but probably the most rewarding. Speaking while on the job is not normally an issue for me but being evaluated solely on my speaking performance as well as my chosen persuasive argument was nerve-wracking. I am sure the experience provided good practice.
As much as I dreaded taking this class, I realize now that while critical writing is not my strongest point, I enjoyed the challenge. This type of writing does not come easy to me but I put forth all my effort. I did not complete this class without flaw, as I would have liked, but I learned and reworked skills that I can apply and improve upon in the future.

Western Cultural Traditions Assignment - Nudity in Art Through the Ages


Lefebvre, Jules Joseph. Odalisque. 1874. Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago. 1 May 2007. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Odalisque.jpg


The Nude Figure in Western Art:
Renaissance to Present Day

LA 201.75: Western Cultural Traditions II
May 10, 2007


As far back as the fifth century BCE, the undraped human figure has appeared in countless pieces of art. While depictions of nude figures may seem to serve only aesthetic purposes, these pieces have actually provided significant benefits to society. For example, nude portraits have imparted historians and anthropologists with graphic chronicles of the lives and cultures of the past. Since it gained popularity in the Renaissance period, however, nudity in the arts has long been a recurrent topic of controversy in Western cultures.

According to the Grove Art Online research web site, the nude figure in Western art appears to have originated in Greece, sometime around the fifth century BCE. Because Christianity began to wield a greater influence over society and culture beginning in about the third century ADE, the nude figure as an artist’s muse did not spread throughout the West until the about the 15th century, and even then, some European countries were hesitant to accept it[1].


Artist Unknown. Photo by Laura Scudder. Aphrodite, Pan, and Eros. National Archeological Museum in Athens, Greece. 10 May 2007. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Aphrodite_Pan_and_Eros.jpg

On Oxford Reference Online, Harold Osborne and Hugh Brigstocke state that the practice of drawing a live model did not become common practice until the Renaissance period. The oldest surviving evidence of live model use was found in drawings by Antonio di Puccio Pisano, better known as Pisanello, a 15th century painter and medallist. Because of the drawings hazy appearance, it was thought that Pisanello sketched female figures from behind a veil or curtain to appease the morals of the Catholic Church.

Men were more often used as models, even when the artist was rendering a female figure. While this also served decency purposes, the predominantly male artist community believed “that the male form was nobler and the female one lacking in proportion” (Osborne and Brigstocke)[2]. As one could imagine, using a male as a reference point for a female figure resulted in some very masculine-looking women.

By the end of the 15th century, professional male art models were posing in studios and in educational “’life class[es]’” (Osborne and Brigstocke). The use of female models in Europe did not become popular until well after the 18th century, but it has been documented that Roman artists were using female models as early as 1650.


Eugène Ferdinand Victor Delacroix. Mademoiselle Rose. 1824. The Louvre, Paris. 9, May 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Eug%C3%A8ne_Ferdinand_Victor_Delacroix_024.jpg

Religion had such a heavy influence on art that it is almost incredible that nude models were used at all during this time. Fra Bartolomeo, an Italian Renaissance painter, became so conflicted by his nude work, that he “burnt his drawings after hearing an impassioned sermon…, but changed his mind after seeing Michelangelo’s works in Rome” (Osborne and Brigstocke).

Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni, simply known as Michelangelo, was best known for his awe-inspiring paintings and lifelike sculptures. Many of his muscular figures appeared nude or scantily clothed. One such piece was Michelangelo’s statue of Christ at the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva, titled Cristo della Miverva, which was completed in 1521. According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, the statue was to represent the resurrected Savior. The priest who commissioned the piece felt that Christ would not have been clothed, having just resurrected himself. The statue was carved and erected, sans clothing. Sometime in the Baroque era, the piece was fitted with a bronze loin cloth for the sake of virtue[3].


Michelangelo. Christ the Redeemer. 1521. Santa Maria Church. 9 May 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Michelangelo-Christ_the_Redeemer.jpg

Some of Michelangelo’s most famous works, the frescoes in the Sistine Chapel, were also a subject of infamous argument. The Last Judgment, a huge mural covering an entire wall within the chapel, caused such a stir that another artist was later commissioned to cover portions of it. As told by the Vatican Museum, a high ranking member or the church was quoted as saying “’it was most dishonest in such an honoured place to have painted so many nude figures who so dishonestly show their shame and that it was not a work for a Chapel of the Pope but for stoves and taverns’ (G. Vasari, LeVite)” (Vatican.va). The decision was made by the Council of Trent in 1564, the same year as Michelangelo’s death, to have Daniele da Volterra paint “breeches” onto the nude figures[4].
Michelangleo. The Last Judgement. 1541. The Sistine Chapel. 9 May 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Last_judgement.jpg

Another of Michelangelo’s statues, David, was fitted with a removable fig leaf after being presented to Queen Victoria in 1857. The Victoria and Albert South Kensington Museum, current exhibitioners of both David and the two foot fig leaf, tells of the contention the nude statue has caused:

“A letter sent to the Museum in 1903 by a Mr Dobson complained about the
statuary displayed: 'One can hardly designate these figures as "art"!: if it is,
it is a very objectionable form of art.'

In relation to Mr Dobson’s complaint, the then director Caspar Purdon Clarke noted:

'The antique casts gallery has been very much used by private lady teachers for
the instruction of young girl students and none of them has ever complained even
indirectly' (museum papers, 1903)[1]” (Victoria & Albert Museum web site).
During the modest Victorian Era, public figures endeavored on “fig-leafing” campaigns, whereby unclothed statues and paintings received an appropriately placed fig leaf. According to Wikipedia.org, some statues of male figures even had the penis removed to accommodate the fig leaf[2]. Numerous pieces of priceless art were irreparably damaged by this.

There happens to be another school of thought by a group who is discontented by nude art forms, particularly the female nude. Some feminists have taken offense to the fact that the term “nude” has developed a feminine connotation. In Lynda Nead’s book, The Female Nude, she discusses how people think they can label anything art as long as it contains a naked female, even if it borders on pornography[3].

Lidia Guibert Ferrara and Frances Borzello, in an article published by British news press The Guardian, discuss how the addition of certain historical icons in art work can change the connotation from sexual to respectable. In the article titled, “Nude Awakening”, Ferrara and Borzello suggest that by adding a cupid or changing the figure’s pose to a “goddess”-like position, the nude art form has become acceptable. An example they used was Manet’s Olympia exhibit in Paris. Instead of the traditionally drawn, passive, reclining nude female, Manet unveiled a modern woman who appeared to be actively staring back at the viewer. The audience was appalled[4].


Manet, Edouard. Olympia. 1863. Musee d’Orsay, Paris. 10 May 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympia_%28painting%29

This brings us to the real issue of nudity and art: the line between art and pornography can be quite vague. To complicate things even further, there appears to be a genre in between: “erotic art”. Erotic art is defined as “art with sexual content and… art that celebrates sexuality” (Grove Art Online). Erotic art is nothing new. Cave paintings depicting sexual rituals were found in southern France that date back to the Paleolithic era. Classical Greek and Roman mythological gods and goddesses were frequently portrayed nude and participating in sexual acts to represent fertility. In the Western world under the rule of Christianity, sexuality in art has undergone repression, thus making eroticism in art all the more interesting[5].



Klimt, Gustave. Danae. 1908. Leopold Museum, Vienna. 7 May 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gustav_Klimt_010.jpg

Gustav Klimt was perhaps one of the best examples of an erotic artist. A painter of the female nude, his pieces contained subliminal phallic symbols and frequent scenes of masturbation. Born in Austria in the late 1800s, Klimt was often criticized as being immoral. Economist magazine, in a story about Klimt, described him as being “the finest ever draughts[man] of the human body” (77-78)[6]. However, they suggest that the Viennese bourgeoisie considered Klimt’s work as “an excuse to show erotic nudes in the name of art”(77). Perhaps their opinion has some truth to it, but considering a Klimt original just sold at auction for over $130 million, he must have pleased someone.

Another thought: is there a difference between “nude” and “naked”? Art historian Kenneth Clark, in his book The Nude: Study in Ideal Form, answers that question: “To be naked is to be deprived of our clothes, and the word implies some of embarrassment most of us feel in that condition. The word ‘nude’, on the other hand, carries, in educated usage, no uncomfortable overtone[7]” (Clark, 34).

As Arthur C. Danto states in the magazine The Nation, “nude goes with beauty and naked goes with shame” (Danto, 101)[8]. Borrowing an example from the Bible, Danto explains that prior to the fall from Eden, Adam and Eve were shamelessly nude. He describes their existence with a child-like innocence. After Eve takes the apple from the Tree of Knowledge and shares it with Adam, “then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked” (Genesis 3:7)[9]. Danto explains, “it is when male and female were transformed from nudity to nakedness that sex became associated with darkness” (Danto, 101). Could this then be a reference to pornography?



Dürer, Albrecht Adam and Eve. 1507. Museo del Prado, Madrid, Spain. 9 May 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Durer_Adam_and_Eve.jpg

Actually, pornography, as defined by The New Oxford American Dictionary, is “printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.” [10] So simply including a nude figure in an art piece does not constitute pornography, it is the “intention”.

Obviously, nudity in art has offended many people over the last several hundred years. But aside from causing conflict, the unclothed human figure in the fine arts has served its purpose. Since prehistoric times, the depictions of humans, clothed or not, have served as valuable records of history. In Anne Abichou’s article “art and the body,” she points out that “cultural attitudes and a society's understanding of sexuality can often be seen through the depictions of the human figure.[11]” For a cultural anthropologist or historian, a nude sketch from a little known era could provide a much sought after clue to the past.

Take, for example, the following painting by Tiziano Vecellio. During the 16th century, female figures in art were normally plump, lacked muscle tone, and had modest-sized breasts (by today’s standards). The breast size may be attributed to the fact that many artists used young boys to pose for paintings. Now, consider today’s standards: anorexic-thin waifs with super-augmented breasts. There is certainly a distinction between the ideal female figure of the present and the woman of the 16th century.


Vecellio, Tiziano. Venus Anadyomene 1525. National Gallery of Scotland, Edinburgh. 08 May 2007.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Anadyomene.jpg
The bare human figure provided scientific function as well. During the Renaissance, anatomical study became imperative to the medical field. Illustrations of human anatomy functioned as vital reference materials for the early medical community. However, many of the subjects for these drawings were cadavers and little controversy surrounded their nudity.

Over the ages in Western art, there have been attempts to try to classify nudity and nakedness, art and pornography. Different eras, having different religious influences, are responsible for creating these labels. While there may be a fine line between art and porn, a single person has no right to judge self-expression. Sexuality, a topic of taboo, is still a part of art, history, and every human being who has ever walked this earth.
WORKS CITED LIST

[1] “David’s Fig Leaf”. Victoria and Albert Museum. 8 May 2007.
[2] “Fig Leaf” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. 9 May 2007.
[3] “Women and Art History: Feminist Critiques: The Nude.” Grove Art Online. 29 December 2003. Oxford University Press. Murrysville Community Library (IP). 9 May 2007.
[4] Lidia Guibert Ferrara and Frances Borzello. “Nude Awakening.” The Guardian. 2 November 2002. 9 May 2007. <>
[5] “Erotic Art.” Grove Art Online. Oxford University Press. Murrysville Community Library (IP). 10 May 2007.
[6] “A Fine Line.” Economist. Feb 2005.: 77-78.
[7] Clark, Kenneth. The Nude: Study in Ideal Form. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984.
[8] Danto, Arthur C. “Art.” The Nation. Jan. 1994: 100+
[9] New American Standard Bible. USA: Oxford University Press, 2005.
[10] "pornography n." The New Oxford American Dictionary, second edition. Ed. Erin McKean. Oxford University Press, 2005. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Murrysville Community Library (IP). 10 May 2007
[11] Anne Abichou "art and the body" The Oxford Companion to the Body. Ed. Colin Blakemore and Sheila Jennett. Oxford University Press, 2001. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Murrysville Community Library (IP). 8 May 2007