Thursday, March 26, 2015

Tweet

[IWS] CRS: ISRAEL AFTER THE 2015 ELECTIONS: WHAT DOES NETANYAHU'S VICTORY MEAN FOR U.S. POLICY? [24 March 2015]

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies-----------------Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor--------------------Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

NOTE: Funding for this service ends on 31 March 2015. Postings will end on this date as well.

 

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

 

CRS Insights

 

Israel After the 2015 Elections: What Does Netanyahu's Victory Mean for U.S. Policy? [24 March 2015]

Jim Zanotti, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs (jzanotti@crs.loc.gov, 7-1441)

March 24, 2015 (IN10251)

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/IN10251.pdf

[full-text, 3 pages, with numerous links]

 

[excerpt]

The Israeli Knesset elections held on March 17, 2015, were a subject of significant interest for the

United States. The leading candidates openly differed on how to manage disagreements with the

United States and the international community on various matters, though how that might have

translated into substantively different policy stances is unclear. The timing and manner of official Israeli

statements and actions influence regional and international attitudes and developments, and may

shape how the Obama Administration and Congress work together and with Israel on these issues.

Since the beginning of March 2015, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has

 

·         spoken assertively at a joint meeting of Congress in opposition to the presumed parameters of a

possible diplomatic agreement on Iran's nuclear program;

 

·         appeared to renounce his previously expressed willingness to accept the creation of a Palestinian

state, before claiming shortly after the election that he still supports a "two-state solution" in

principle but not under current realities;

 

·         declared that foreign sources were funding and advising Israeli left-leaning and Arab groups in an

effort to unseat him, amid evidence of substantial private American support for both Netanyahu's

right-of-center Likud party and its main rival—the left-of-center Zionist Union.

 

Likud finished with a six-seat advantage over the Zionist Union, which was particularly striking because

Likud had trailed by four seats in final pre-election polls. Many commentators attribute Likud's win at

least partly to statements by Netanyahu in the final days of the campaign to persuade right-leaning

voters to choose Likud over smaller parties in order to prevent Zionist Union from taking power. To

some extent, such statements may have been calculated to counter media reports that Netanyahu had

previously considered making concessions to the Palestinians.

 

AND MUCH MORE…

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Tweet

[IWS] BLS: MULTIFACTOR PRODUCTIVITY TRENDS - 2013 [26 March 2015]

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies-----------------Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor--------------------Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

NOTE: Funding for this service ends on 31 March 2015. Postings will end on this date as well.

 

MULTIFACTOR PRODUCTIVITY TRENDS - 2013 [26 March 2015]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod3.nr0.htm

or

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/prod3.pdf

[full-text, 16 pages]

 

Private nonfarm business sector multifactor productivity increased at a 0.9

percent annual rate in 2013, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported

today. (See chart 1, table A.) This gain in 2013 reflected a 2.7-percent

increase in output and a 1.8-percent increase in the combined inputs of

capital and labor. Capital services grew by 1.7 percent, the largest gain

since 2008, and labor input - which is the combined effect of hours worked

and labor composition - grew 1.8 percent. Capital services per hour of all

persons decreased at a rate of 0.1 percent in 2013 after falling 0.8 percent

in 2012. The decreases in 2011, 2012, and 2013 are the only three years of

decline in this measure of capital intensity which began in 1987.

(See table 1.)

 

Multifactor productivity measures the change in output relative to the

change in capital and labor inputs used to produce that output. It is

designed to measure the joint influences of technological change,

efficiency improvements, returns to scale, reallocation of resources,

and other factors of economic growth, accounting for the effects of capital

and labor. Multifactor productivity annual measures differ from BLS

quarterly labor productivity (output per hour worked) measures because the

former also include the influences of capital services and shifts in the

composition of the workforce. Additionally, much of the source data needed

to construct multifactor productivity measures are not available on a

quarterly basis.

               

Private business sector multifactor productivity increased at a 1.1 percent

annual rate in 2013, reflecting a 2.9- percent increase in output and a

1.7-percent increase in the combined inputs of capital and labor.

(See table 2.)

 

AND MUCH MORE...including TABLES....

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Tweet

[IWS] Census: UNION MEMBERSHIP STATISTICS: LIVE on FRIDAY, 27 March 2015 9:20am (EDT) on C-SPAN's "America by the Numbers" Segment of “Washington Journal”

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies-----------------Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor--------------------Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

NOTE: Funding for this service ends on 31 March 2015. Postings will end on this date as well.

 

Census

 

LIVE on FRIDAY, 27 March 2015

 

Press Release 25 March 2015

Union Membership Statistics in America, Live on C-SPAN's "America by the Numbers" Segment of "Washington Journal"

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-tps27.html

 

The union membership rate of wage and salary workers was 11.1 percent in 2014, down from 20.1 percent in 1983. The public-sector rate (35.7 percent) was more than five times higher than the private-sector rate (6.6 percent). Find out more on Friday, March 27, 2015, at approximately 9:20 a.m. EDT as Mike Horrigan, Associate Commissioner for Employment and Unemployment at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, discusses statistics about union membership in America. C-SPAN's "America by the Numbers" segments feature information from the federal statistical system. The program highlights trends and allows the public to call in or email their views.  More information on previous C-SPAN programs is available at http://www.census.gov/newsroom/cspan/

 

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Tweet

[IWS] Census: COUNTY AND METRO AREA POPULATIONS ESTIMATES [26 March 2015]

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies-----------------Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor--------------------Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

NOTE: Funding for this service ends on 31 March 2015. Postings will end on this date as well.

 

Census

Press Kit
COUNTY AND METRO AREA POPULATIONS ESTIMATES [26 March 2015]
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-kits/2015/20150326_popestimates.html

Press Release 26 Marach 2015
New Census Bureau Population Estimates Reveal Metro Areas and Counties that Propelled Growth in Florida and the Nation
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-56.html

The Villages, Fla., Nation’s Fastest-Growing Metro Area for Second Year in a Row

Florida was home to the nation's fastest growing metro area from 2013 to 2014, according to new U.S. Census Bureau metropolitan statistical area, micropolitan statistical area and county population estimates released today.

The Villages, located to the west of the Orlando metro area, grew by 5.4 percent between July 1, 2013, and July 1, 2014, to reach a population of about 114,000. State population estimates released in December revealed that Florida had become the nation's third most populous state. Today's estimates show Florida's growth to reach this milestone was propelled by numerous metro areas and counties within the state.

Florida contained seven of the nation's top 50 numerically gaining metro areas between July 1, 2013, and July 1, 2014, and these areas accounted for more than three-quarters of the state's population gain over the period:

§  Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach (with a one-year gain of about 66,000).

§  Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford (about 50,000).

§  Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater (about 41,000).

§  Jacksonville (about 23,000).

§  Cape Coral-Fort Myers (about 18,000).

§  North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton (about 16,000).

§  Lakeland-Winter Haven (about 11,000).

In addition, eight counties within these metro areas were among 50 counties nationwide that gained the most population between 2013 and 2014. Collectively, these counties accounted for more than half of the state's population gain over the period:

§  All three counties in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach metro area: Broward (with a population gain of about 24,000 over the period), Palm Beach (about 22,000) and Miami-Dade (about 21,000).

§  Two counties in the Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford metro area: Orange (about 26,000) and Osceola (about 11,000).

§  One county in the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater metro area: Hillsborough (about 22,000).

§  The single counties that comprise the Cape Coral-Fort Myers and Lakeland-Winter Haven metro areas: Lee (18,000) and Polk (11,000), respectively.

Furthermore, six metro areas in Florida were among the 20 fastest-growing in the nation between 2013 and 2014. In addition to The Villages, they were Cape Coral-Fort Myers (sixth), Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island (10th), Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford (16th), North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton (18th) and Panama City (19th).

"Florida's ascension, revealed when the 2014 state population estimates were released last December, was a significant demographic milestone for our country," Census Bureau Director John H. Thompson said. "These county and metro area estimates provide a more detailed picture of how this happened, showing growth in areas such as central and southern Florida."

Migration to Florida from other states and abroad was heavy enough to overcome the fact that in about half the state's counties, there were more deaths than births over the 2013 to 2014 period.

Lone Star State's Notable Growth

There were two states -- Texas (with 11) and California (with 10) -- with even more counties than Florida on the list of the top 50 numerical gainers. Two Texas metro areas -- Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land and Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington -- were the only ones in the country to add more than 100,000 residents over the 2013-2014 period. Within the Houston metro area, Harris County alone gained almost 89,000 people, more than any other county in the nation. The Lone Star State also had four metro areas among the nation's 20 fastest growing by rate of change: Austin-Round Rock (third), Odessa (fourth), Midland (ninth) and Houston (11th).

With a population increase of 8.7 percent from July 1, 2013, to July 1, 2014, Williams, N.D., remained the nation's fastest-growing county (among counties with populations of 10,000 or more in 2013), although its growth slowed from the previous one-year period. Following Williams on the list were Stark, N.D. (7.0 percent), whose growth accelerated from the previous year; Sumter, Fla. (5.4 percent); Pickens, Ala. (5.1 percent); and Hays, Texas (4.8 percent).

Other findings:

Counties

§  Los Angeles, Calif., is still the nation's most populous county with a July 1, 2014, population surpassing 10.1 million.

§  Between 2013 and 2014, North Carolina became the ninth-most populous state (up from 10th). Its growth was fueled by two counties that were among the 50 top numerical gainers: Wake (Raleigh), which added about 24,000 people over the period, and Mecklenburg (Charlotte), which grew by about 20,000.

§  Although New York fell out of third place in state population between 2013 and 2014, it did have three counties among the top 50 numerical gainers. Each was a New York City borough: Kings (Brooklyn), which added about 19,000; Queens, which gained about 18,000; and Bronx (with an increase of about 11,000).

§  Among the largest counties (those with total populations of 250,000 or more in 2013), the three fastest growing were in Texas: Fort Bend, Montgomery and Williamson. Each grew by at least 3.8 percent over the period.

§  Among very small counties, Sterling, Texas, was the fastest growing of those with a population of fewer than 5,000 people in 2013 (8.9 percent growth). Among those in the 5,000-9,999 population range, McKenzie, N.D., led in rate of growth (18.3 percent).

§  The fastest-losing county between July 1, 2013, and July 1, 2014 (among counties with 2013 populations of 10,000 or more) was Chattahoochee, Ga., which declined by 4.2 percent. Hale, Texas (-3.0 percent) and Colfax, N.M. (-2.9 percent) followed.

§  Wayne, Mich. (Detroit) remains the county with the largest numeric decline, by far, at just less than 11,000. The next largest decline belonged to Cuyahoga, Ohio (Cleveland) at slightly more than 4,000.

Metro areas

§  The Carolinas were home to four of the nation's 20 fastest-growing metro areas between 2013 and 2014: Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, S.C.-N.C. (second); Hilton Head Island-Bluffton-Beaufort, S.C. (13th); Raleigh, N.C. (15th); and Charleston-North Charleston, S.C. (17th).

§  The nation's metro areas contained about 272.7 million people in 2014, an increase of about 2.4 million from 2013.

§  Bismarck, N.D., was the fastest-growing metro area outside of the South or West between 2013 and 2014 (22nd overall).

§  Overall, 298 of the 381 metro areas in the United States gained population between 2013 and 2014.

§  There were 53 metro areas with 2014 populations of 1 million or more. New York was the nation's largest metro area in 2014, with about 20.1 million people.

§  The Tucson, Ariz., metro area surpassed the 1 million population threshold between 2013 and 2014.

Micro areas

§  The nation's micro areas contained about 27.2 million people in 2014, an increase of about 13,000 from 2013.

§  The two fastest-growing micro areas between 2013 and 2014 were in North Dakota: Williston and Dickinson.

§  Two Utah micro areas, Heber and Vernal, also were among the top-five fastest growing between 2013 and 2014.

§  Overall, fewer than half (244 out of 536) of the U.S. micro areas gained population between 2013 and 2014.

Puerto Rico

§  San Juan continued to be the most populous municipio (which are similar to counties), with 365,575 residents on July 1, 2014, followed by Baymón with 194,210 and Carolina with 165,820 residents.

§  Gurabo had the largest numerical increase of any municipio between July 1, 2013, and July 1, 2014, gaining about 246 residents.

§  Four municipios experienced growth in their populations between July 1, 2013, and July 1, 2014: Gurabo (0.52 percent growth), Barceloneta (0.08 percent growth), Culebra (0.06 percent growth) and Toa Alta (0.01 percent growth). The remainder experienced a population decline over the period.

§  Each of Puerto Rico's seven metro areas and five micro areas declined in population between 2013 and 2014.

In the coming months, the Census Bureau will release 2014 population estimates of cities and towns, as well as national, state and county population estimates by age, sex, race and Hispanic origin.

-X-

The Census Bureau develops county, metro area, and micro area population estimates by measuring population change since the most recent census. The Census Bureau uses births, deaths, administrative records and survey data to develop estimates of population. For more detail regarding the methodology, see <https://www.census.gov/popest/methodology/>.

The Office of Management and Budget's statistical area delineations (for metro and micro areas) are those issued by that agency in February 2013. Metro areas contain at least one urbanized area of 50,000 or more population and micro areas contain at least one urban cluster of at least 10,000 (but less than 50,000) population. Both metro and micro areas consist of one or more whole counties or county equivalents. Some metro and micro area titles are abbreviated in the text of the news release. Full titles are shown in the tables.

 

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Tweet

[IWS] EBRI: How Much Needs to be Saved for Retirement After Factoring In Post-Retirement Risks: Evidence from the EBRI Retirement Security Projection Model® [25 March 2015]

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies-----------------Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor--------------------Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

NOTE: Funding for this service ends on 31 March 2015. Postings will end on this date as well.

 

Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI)

EBRI NOTES: March 2015, Vol. 36, No. 3

 

How Much Needs to be Saved for Retirement After Factoring In Post-Retirement Risks: Evidence from the EBRI Retirement Security Projection Model®

http://www.ebri.org/publications/notes/index.cfm?fa=notesDisp&content_id=5501

or

http://www.ebri.org/pdf/notespdf/Notes.Mar15.Final.Svgs.24Mar.pdf

[full-text, 17 pages]

 

Executive Summary

 

·         This analysis helps answer one of the most important questions that many defined contribution participants face before retirement: How much do I need to save each year for a "successful" retirement? It includes three of the major post-retirement risks (longevity, investment, and long-term care) while allowing the participant to also choose the probability of "success" that is best suited for their circumstances.

 

·         Given the assumptions used in this Notes article, a single male age 25 earning $40,000 with no previous savings would need a total contribution rate (employee and employer combined) of less than 3 percent per year until retirement (age 65) for a 50 percent chance of success. A 6.4 percent contribution rate would achieve a 75 percent success rate and a 14 percent contribution rate would achieve a 90 percent success rate. But if a male earning $40,000 were to wait until age 40 to begin saving, he would need a 6.5 percent total contribution rate for just a 50 percent chance of success and a 16.5 percent total contribution rate for a 75 percent chance of success; a 90 percent probability of success would be impossible even with a 25 percent contribution rate.

 

·         The analysis also shows how large a participant's current account balance needs to be, by contribution rate, to be "on-track" for a particular level of retirement success.

 

Press Release 25 March 2015

Calculating Retirement Savings Needs by Age, Gender, and Chance of Success

http://www.ebri.org/pdf/PR1117.SvgsRates.25Mar15.pdf

 

WASHINGTON—How much do workers need to have saved for retirement at different ages? And based

on their age and income, how much needs to be contributed to their defined contribution plan to ensure a

financially successful retirement?

 

New research from the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) helps answer these

questions, at least for single males and females. Not surprisingly, results show that time counts: The

earlier a person starts saving, the less they will need to put aside every year—and the longer they wait,

they'll need to save more (often a lot more) to catch up. Because of their longer longevity, women

typically will need to save more than men.

 

Using its Retirement Security Projection Model® (RSPM), EBRI calculated the savings amounts needed

at different contribution rates, salary levels, and ages for both genders, for various probabilities that they

not run out of money to pay for average expenses plus uninsured health care costs throughout

retirement—the model's definition of a "successful" retirement. For simplification, the modeling

currently excludes any net home equity or traditional pension income and does not factor in preretirement

leakages or periods of non-participation.

 

"This analysis answers two key questions: How much do I need to save each year for a 'successful'

retirement? How large do I need my account balance to be after saving for several years to be 'on-track'

for a successful retirement given my future contribution rate?" said EBRI Research Director Jack

VanDerhei, and author of the report.

 

"In essence, this allows one to pick which of three contribution rates they are most likely to choose for the

future and then see how large their existing account balance would need to be at that age."

VanDerhei noted these questions cannot be answered by the commonly used "replacement rate" planning

tool, which uses a percentage of income as an optimal savings goal. That's because the replacement rate

method ignores such critically important risk factors as longevity (outliving one's savings), postretirement

investment risk, and nursing home costs. By contrast, the RSPM® model includes those factors in its

simulations.

 

The new EBRI analysis presents the required contribution rates for those starting to save at ages 25, 40, or

55. It also presents the minimum account balances required for those contributing to their plans at 4.5

percent, 9 percent, and 15 percent of salary, and shows how much they should have saved at a particular

age threshold to be "on track" for a successful retirement. For instance, the EBRI analysis finds:

 

Savings Rates and Probability of Success

 For a 25-year-old single male (with no previous savings) earning $40,000 a year, with a total

(employee and employer combined) contribution rate of 3 percent of his salary until age 65 would

result in a 50–50 chance of retirement income adequacy; saving 6.4 percent of salary would boost

his chances of success to 75 percent. Women that age would need more because of their longer

lifespans.

 

 A 40-year-old male with no previous savings earning $40,000 would need a total contribution

rate of 6.5 percent of salary just to have a 50–50 shot at a financially successful retirement,

because he has less time to work and save. But saving 16.5 percent of salary would produce a 75

percent chance of success.

 

 A 55-year-old male making $40,000 with no previous savings would need a total contribution

rate of as much a quarter of his salary (24.5 percent) to have a 50–50 chance of a successful

retirement, again due to little time left in the workforce.

 

Minimum Account Balance

How much should a worker have saved by a particular age for a successful retirement? That depends on

their salary, how much is being contributed to their defined contribution plan, and what odds they want

for success. Again, the EBRI analysis breaks out the answers by those factors:

For instance, for a single male age 40 contributing 9 percent of salary:

 

 At $20,000 a year, he would need $14,619 already saved for a 50 percent chance of

retirement success.

 

 At $40,000 a year, he'd need a minimum balance of $47,493 in savings for a 75 percent

chance of success.

 

 At $65,000 a year, he'd need $4,616 of pre-existing savings for a 90 chance of success.

EBRI notes that the numbers will vary by individual: For those who are younger and have higher savings

rates, the required pre-existing savings level goes down.

 

The full report, "How Much Needs to be Saved For Retirement After Factoring in Post-Retirement Risks:

Evidence from the EBRI Retirement Security Projection Model,®" is published in the March 2015 EBRI

Notes, online at www.ebri.org

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Tweet

[IWS] BLS: OCCUPATIONAL EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES -- MAY 2014 [25 March 2015]

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies-----------------Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor--------------------Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

NOTE: Funding for this service ends on 31 March 2015. Postings will end on this date as well.

 

OCCUPATIONAL EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES -- MAY 2014 [25 March 2015]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ocwage.nr0.htm

or

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ocwage.pdf

[full-text, 23 pages]

 

 

The occupations with the largest employment in May 2014 were retail salespersons and

cashiers, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. These two occupations

combined made up nearly 6 percent of total U.S. employment, with employment levels of

4.6 million and 3.4 million, respectively. Of the 10 largest occupations, only registered

nurses, with an annual mean wage of $69,790, had an average wage above the U.S. all-

occupations mean of $47,230. The highest paying occupations overall included several

physician and dentist occupations, chief executives, nurse anesthetists, and petroleum

engineers. National employment and wage information for all occupations is shown in

table 1.

 

The data in this news release are from the Occupational Employment Statistics program,

which produces employment and wage estimates for over 800 occupations for the nation,

states, and metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas; and by industry or ownership at the

national level. This release contains data on science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics (STEM) occupations. A list of occupations included in the STEM definition

used for this release is available at www.bls.gov/oes/stem_list.xlsx.

 

Occupations

 

   --The 10 largest occupations accounted for 21 percent of total employment in May 2014.

     In addition to retail salespersons and cashiers, the largest occupations included

     combined food preparation and serving workers, including fast food; general office

     clerks; registered nurses; customer service representatives; and waiters and

     waitresses.

 

   --Most of the largest occupations were relatively low paying. Excluding registered

     nurses, annual mean wages for the rest of the 10 largest occupations ranged

     from $19,110 for combined food preparation and serving workers to $34,500 for

     secretaries and administrative assistants, except legal, medical, and executive.

     Combined food preparation and serving workers also was one of the lowest paying

     occupations overall, along with fast food cooks ($19,030), shampooers ($19,480),

     and dishwashers ($19,540).

 

AND MUCH MORE...including TABLES....

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Tweet

[IWS] NCES: WHAT IS THE PRICE OF COLLEGE? TOTAL, NET, AND OUT-OF-POCKET PRICES BY TYPE OF INSTITUTION IN 2011-12 [26 March 2015]

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies-----------------Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor--------------------Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

NOTE: Funding for this service ends on 31 March 2015. Postings will end on this date as well.

 

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)

What Is the Price of College? Total, Net, and Out-of-Pocket Prices by Type of Institution in 2011–12 [26 March 2015]

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2015165

or

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015165.pdf

[full-text, 24 pages]

 

Description:       

This report describes three measures of the price of undergraduate education in the 2011–12 academic year: total price of attendance (tuition and living expenses), net price of attendance after all grants, and out-of-pocket net price after all financial aid. It is based on the 2011–12 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:12), a nationally representative study of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Students are grouped into four institution types: public 2-year institutions, public 4-year institutions, private nonprofit 4-year institutions, and for-profit institutions at all levels (less-than-2-year, 2-year, and 4-year)

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Tweet

[IWS] Eurobarometer: GENDER EQUALITY [March 2015]

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies-----------------Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor--------------------Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

NOTE: Funding for this service ends on 31 March 2015. Postings will end on this date as well.

 

European Commission

Special Eurobarometer 428

 

GENDER EQUALITY [March 2015]

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_428_en.pdf

[full-text, 229 pages]

 

Summary

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_428_sum_en.pdf

[full-text, 35 pages]

 

[excerpt]

Eurobarometer Survey seeks to measure Europeans' perceptions of

gender inequalities within their own country: how widespread inequalities between

women and men are, and whether the situation has improved or worsened compared

with ten years ago; whether men or women are more likely to experience such

discrimination among particular groups of people (young, old, people with disabilities,

migrants, single parents, and working parents with young children); and the areas of life

(e.g. work, school, media, politics) where gender stereotypes are deemed to be most

prevalent. It also examines Europeans’ general attitudes towards gender equality and,

more specifically, the role of women in the workplace and the role of men at home. In

terms of tackling gender inequalities, the survey provides measures on Europeans’

opinions on which organisations have contributed most over the last ten years; whether

this should be an EU priority; which areas should be dealt with most urgently; and what

measures are considered to be the most effective at increasing the number of women in

the workplace, and increasing the amount of time men spend on home care activities.

Finally, the survey explores the issue of violence against women – what Europeans think

this encompasses and which specific forms of such violence the EU should focus its

efforts on.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 3

MAIN FINDINGS ................................................................................................. 7

1. ATTITUDES TOWARDS GENDER EQUALITY AND STEREOTYPES ............... 13

1.1. Perceptions of gender roles .............................................................. 13

1.2. Prevalence of gender stereotypes in all walks of life ......................... 24

1.3. Importance of gender equality .......................................................... 30

2. PERCEPTIONOF GENDER INEQUALITY IN EUROPE .................................. 38

2.1. Gender inequality now and ten years ago ......................................... 38

2.2. Most susceptible groups that experience gender inequality .............. 49

3. TACKLING GENDER INEQUALITY EFFECTIVELY ....................................... 59

3.1. Tackling gender inequality as a priority for the EU ............................ 59

3.2. Increasing the number of working women in the EU ......................... 62

3.3. Increasing the time spent by men on caring activities ...................... 68

3.4. Areas of gender inequality to be dealt with most urgently ................ 73

3.5. Institutions that have contributed the most to tackling gender

inequality in Europe ................................................................................... 80

4. COMBATING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ............................................... 86

4.1. What does ‘violence against women’ mean? ..................................... 86

4.2. Forms of violence against women as a priority for the EU to combat 93

CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................. 99

ANNEXES

Technical specifications

Questionnaire

Table

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Tweet

[IWS] NCHS: Health Insurance Coverage: Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, January–September 2014 [24 March 2015]

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies-----------------Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor--------------------Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

NOTE: Funding for this service ends on 31 March 2015. Postings will end on this date as well.

 

National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)

 

Health Insurance Coverage: Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, January–September 2014 [24 March 2015]

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/insur201503.pdf

[full-text, 31 pages]

 

Highlights

 In the first 9 months of 2014, 37.2 million persons of all ages (11.9%) were uninsured at the time of interview, 53.5 million (17.1%) had been uninsured for at least part of the year prior to interview, and 27.2 million (8.7%) had been uninsured for more than a year at the time of interview.

 

 Among persons under age 65, 63.2% (169.5 million) were covered by private health insurance plans at the time of interview. This includes 2.1% (5.6 million) covered by private plans through the Health Insurance Marketplace or state-based exchanges at the time of interview between January and September 2014. The proportion with exchange coverage increased from 1.4% (3.7 million) in the first quarter of 2014 (January–March) to 2.5% (6.8 million) in the third quarter of 2014 (July–September).

 

 Among adults aged 18–64, the percentage who were uninsured at the time of interview decreased from 20.4% in 2013 to 16.7% in the first 9 months of 2014.

 

 Among adults aged 19–25, the percentage who were uninsured at the time of interview decreased from 26.5% in 2013 to 20.4% in the first 9 months of 2014.

 

 In the first 9 months of 2014, the percentage of persons under age 65 who were uninsured at the time of interview varied by state. For example, 9.1% were uninsured in Pennsylvania, whereas 22.2% were uninsured in Texas.

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Tweet

[IWS] JILPT:[JAPAN] SIGN OF CHANGE IN EMPLOYMENT PORTFOLIO [24 March 2015]

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies-----------------Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor--------------------Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

NOTE: Funding for this service ends on 31 March 2015. Postings will end on this date as well.

 

Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training (JILPT)

JILPT Research Eye

A series of labor-related information (evidence) that contributes to the formation of labor policies.

 

SIGN OF CHANGE IN EMPLOYMENT PORTFOLIO [24 March 2015]

by Noboru OGINO, Director for Policy Issues, Research and Statistical Information Analysis Department

http://www.jil.go.jp/english/researcheye/bn/RE006.html

 

A movement is becoming prevalent in Japan to regularize non-regular workers such as part-timers and contract workers. Following Starbucks Coffee Japan which was reported to convert its 800 contract workers to full-fledged regular employees, UNIQLO First Retailing (a manufacturer and retailer of casual wear) announced that the company would shift some 16,000 part-timers to "area limited" regular employees (whose terms of employment are limited in regard to geographical area of duty stations and tasks to be assigned) within two to three years. Furthermore, it is reported that IKEA Japan, a giant furniture manufacturer, is to offer open-ended contracts to its part-timers, and that the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ would shift its contract workers with more than three years of service to open-ended contracts.

 

Content includes:

 

·         Regularization of employees expands by shift to open-ended contracts, conversion to regular employees, and introduction of "limited regular employees" category

 

·         1 out of 4 companies expects an increase in "employees with open-ended contract"

 

·         Nearly 20% of companies are positive towards introduction/expansion of "limited regular employees"

 

·         "Limited regular employees" as absorbents of workers after conversion to open-ended contracts

 

·         Redefinition of "regular employees" required– from dual structure (open-ended/fixed) to a creation of 3rd category

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?