Sunday, November 23, 2014

Tweet

[IWS] CALL FOR PAPERS: CRIMT 2015 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE held at HEC Montréal (Montreal, Canada) from Thursday May 21 to Saturday May 23, 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

________________________________________________________________________

This service is supported, in part, by donations. Please consider making a donation by following the instructions at http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/iws/news-bureau/support.html

 

CENTRE DE RECHERCHE INTERUNIVERSITAIRE SUR LA MONDIALISATION ET LE TRAVAIL (CRIMT)

 

As part of its Major Collaborative Research Initiatives project, the Interuniversity Research Centre on Globalization and Work (CRIMT) will host an international conference on institutional change and experimentation for shaping the future of work and employment. This conference will take place at HEC Montréal (Montreal, Canada) from Thursday May 21 to Saturday May 23, 2015.

 

CRIMT 2015 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

http://www.crimt.org/CRIMT2015CONFERENCE.html

 

INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE AND EXPERIMENTATION: SHAPING THE FUTURE OF WORK AND EMPLOYMENT

 

CALL FOR PAPERS

http://www.crimt.org/CRIMT2015/IE2015_Call.html

or

http://www.crimt.org/CRIMT2015/CRIMT2015_Institutional_Change_and_Experimentation_Call_for_papers.pdf

 

 

The deadline for the submission of proposals is December 1, 2014.

Individual paper proposals should be a maximum of 2 pages, identify the authors and their institutional affiliation, and outline the nature of the study (including the main lines of analysis and methodology as relevant). Workshop proposals should be 3-5 pages in length, identify all participants and their institutional affiliation, and include details on the contribution as a whole, as well as on each individual contribution (2-3 paragraphs for each).

All proposals should be sent by e-mail to Nicolas Roby (CRIMT Scientific Coordinator) at 
nicolas.roby@umontreal.ca. Authors should submit a first draft of their paper by May 8, 2015. Papers will be made available at the time of the conference on a special conference website. Some will be selected for submission to leading refereed journals for inclusion in special issues. 

The Interuniversity Research Centre on Globalization and Work (
www.crimt.org/EN_Index.html) and its partners look forward to rich and interesting debates by academics and practitioners from all perspectives and from many countries, including emerging economies.

 

________________________________________________________________________

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Friday, November 21, 2014

Tweet

[IWS] CRS: U.S. FAMILY-BASED IMMIGRATION POLICY [19 November 2014]

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

________________________________________________________________________

This service is supported, in part, by donations. Please consider making a donation by following the instructions at http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/iws/news-bureau/support.html

 

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

 

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

William A. Kandel,  Analyst in Immigration Policy

November 19, 2014

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43145.pdf

[full-text, 41 pages]

 

Summary

Family reunification is a key principle underlying U.S. immigration policy. It is embodied in the

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which specifies numerical limits for five family-based

admission categories, as well as a per-country limit on total family-based admissions. The five

categories include immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and four other family-based categories that

vary according to individual characteristics such as the legal status of the petitioning U.S.-based

relative, and the age, family relationship, and marital status of the prospective immigrant.

 

Of the 990,553 foreign nationals admitted to the United States in FY2013 as lawful permanent

residents (LPRs), 649,763, or 66%, were admitted on the basis of family ties. Of these familybased

immigrants admitted in FY2013, 68% were admitted as immediate relatives of U.S.

citizens. Many of the 990,553 immigrants were initially admitted on a temporary basis and

became immigrants by converting or “adjusting” their status to a lawful permanent resident. The

proportion of family-based immigrants who adjusted their immigration status while residing in

the United States (54%) exceeded that of family-based immigrants who had their immigration

petitions processed while living abroad (46%), although such percentages varied considerably

among the five family-based admission categories.

 

Since FY2000, increasing numbers of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens have accounted for all

of the growth in family-based admissions. Between FY2000 and FY2009, immigrants who

accompanied or later followed principal (qualifying) immigrants averaged 12% of all familybased

admissions annually. During that period, Mexico, the Philippines, China, India, and the

Dominican Republic sent the most family-based immigrants to the United States.

 

Each year, the number of foreign nationals petitioning for LPR status through family-sponsored

preferences exceeds the supply of legal immigrant slots. As a result, a visa queue has accumulated

of foreign nationals who qualify as immigrants under the INA but who must wait for a visa to

immigrate to the United States. As such, the visa queue constitutes not a backlog of petitions to be

processed but, rather, the number of persons approved for visas not yet available due to INAspecified

numerical limits. As of November 1, 2013, the visa queue included 4.2 million persons.

 

Every month, the Department of State (DOS) produces its Visa Bulletin, which lists “cut-off

dates” for each of the four numerically limited family-based admissions categories. Cut-off dates

indicate when petitions that are currently being processed for a numerically limited visa were

initially approved. For most countries, cut-off dates range between 1.5 years and 12.5 years ago.

For countries that send the most immigrants, the range expands to between 2 and 23 years ago.

Interest in immigration reform has increased scrutiny of family-based immigration and revived

debate over its proportion of total lawful permanent admissions. Past or current proposals for

overhauling family-based admissions have been made by numerous observers, including two

congressionally mandated commissions.

 

Those who favor expanding the number of family-based admissions point to this sizable queue of

prospective immigrants who have been approved for lawful permanent residence but must wait

years separated from their U.S.-based family members until receiving a numerically limited

immigrant visa. Their proposals generally emphasize expanding the numerical limits of familybased

categories. Others question whether the United States has an obligation to reconstitute

families of immigrants beyond their nuclear families. Corresponding proposals would eliminate

several family-based preference categories, favoring only those for the immediate relatives of

U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Such proposals reiterate recommendations made by

earlier congressionally mandated commissions on immigration reform.

 

Contents

Current Developments ..................................................................................................................... 1

Overview of Family-Based Immigration ......................................................................................... 2

Evolution of U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy ...................................................................... 3

Current Laws Governing Overall Admissions ................................................................................. 4

Legal Admissions Limits ........................................................................................................... 4

Per-Country Ceilings ................................................................................................................. 6

Laws Governing Individual Admission ..................................................................................... 7

Procedures for Acquiring Lawful Permanent Residence..................................................... 7

Derivative Admissions ........................................................................................................ 8

Laws Governing Child Admissions ..................................................................................... 9

Conditional Resident Status .............................................................................................. 10

Findings from Earlier Congressionally Mandated Commissions .................................................. 10

Profile of Legal Immigrants ........................................................................................................... 12

Legal Immigration Admission Trends ..................................................................................... 12

Potential Legislative and Policy Issues .......................................................................................... 14

Supply-Demand Imbalance for U.S. Lawful Permanent Residence ........................................ 15

Assessing the Per-Country Ceiling .......................................................................................... 18

Limitations on Visiting U.S. Relatives .................................................................................... 18

Impetus to Violate Immigration Laws ..................................................................................... 19

Aging Out of Legal Status Categories ..................................................................................... 19

Marriage Timing of Immigrant Children ................................................................................. 20

Same-Sex Partners ................................................................................................................... 20

Unaccompanied Alien Children............................................................................................... 21

Broader Immigration Questions ..................................................................................................... 22

Family Reunification versus Family Reconstitution ............................................................... 22

Family Reunification versus Economic Priorities ................................................................... 23

Chain Migration....................................................................................................................... 24

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 26

 

Figures

Figure 1. LPR Admissions by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2013 ......................................... 13

Figure 2. Percent of LPRs Adjusting Status, by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2013 .............. 14

Figure A-1. Region of Birth by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2009 ....................................... 29

 

Tables

Table 1. Numerical Limits of the Immigration and Nationality Act ................................................ 5

Table 2. Actual Family-Sponsored Admissions by Major Class in FY2013.................................... 6

Table 3. Visa Queue of Prospective Family-Preference Immigrants with Approved Applications, for Selected Countries, as of November 1, 2013 ................................. 15

Table 4. Visa Bulletin Cut-Off Dates for Family-Based Petitions, November 2014 ..................... 17

Table A-1. Principal and Derivative Immigrants, by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2009 ......................................................................................................................... 28

Table A-2. Age Distribution and Median Age of Immigrants by Class of Admission, FY2000-FY2009 ......................................................................................................................... 30

Table A-3. Occupational Status of Immigrants by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2009 .......... 31

Table B-1. Annual Number of Lawful Permanent Admissions by Major Class, FY2002-FY2013 ....................................................................................................................................... 32

Table B-2. Percentages of Annual Lawful Permanent Admissions by Major Class, FY2002-FY2013 ......................................................................................................................... 34

Table B-3. Key Proportions for Annual Lawful Permanent Admissions, FY2002-FY2013 ......... 35

 

Appendixes

Appendix A. Demography of Family Based Immigrants .............................................................. 28

Appendix B. Admissions Figures for FY2002-FY2013 ................................................................ 32

 

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 36

 

________________________________________________________________________

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] CRS: NATURAL GAS FOR CARS AND TRUCKS: OPTIONS AND CHALLENGES [19 November 2014]

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

________________________________________________________________________

This service is supported, in part, by donations. Please consider making a donation by following the instructions at http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/iws/news-bureau/support.html

 

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

 

Natural Gas for Cars and Trucks: Options and Challenges

Bill Canis, Specialist in Industrial Organization and Business

Robert Pirog, Specialist in Energy Economics

Brent D. Yacobucci, Section Research Manager

November 19, 2014

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43791.pdf

[full-text, 27 pages]

 

Summary

The increase in domestic supplies of natural gas has raised new interest in expanding its use in the

transportation sector. This report considers issues related to wider use of natural gas as a fuel in

passenger cars and commercial vehicles.

 

The attractiveness of natural gas as a vehicle fuel is premised in large part on its low price (on an

energy-equivalent basis) compared to gasoline and diesel fuel. When prices for gasoline and

diesel are relatively low or natural gas prices are relatively high, natural-gas-based fuels lose

much of their price advantage. While natural gas has other benefits—such as producing lower

emissions than gasoline and diesel and protecting users of transportation fuels from the volatility

of the international oil market—it is largely the cost advantage, if any, that will determine the

future attractiveness of natural gas vehicles.

 

There are a number of technology pathways that could lead to greater use of natural gas in

transportation. Some require pressurized systems to use natural gas in a gaseous state, and others

convert natural gas to a liquid. Two of the most widely discussed options use compressed natural

gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG). Other technological approaches use liquefied

petroleum gas (LPG), propane, and hydrogen. In addition, natural gas can be used to generate

electricity to power electric vehicles.

 

Increasing the use of natural gas to fuel vehicles would require creation of an extensive

nationwide refueling infrastructure. Although a small number of CNG vehicles have been on U.S.

roads for more than 20 years, CNG use has been limited to vehicles that return to a central garage

for refueling each day, such as refuse trucks, short-haul trucks, and city buses. LNG, on the other

hand, requires large insulated tanks to keep the liquefied gas at a very low temperature and is

therefore seen as more suitable for long-haul trucks. In both cases, the limited availability of

refueling stations has limited the distances and routes these vehicles may travel.

 

Congress has taken a strong interest in spurring production and use of natural gas vehicles.

Legislation has been introduced on a wide range of proposals that would equalize the tax

treatment of LNG and diesel fuels, provide tax credits for natural gas vehicles and refueling

equipment, require the production of vehicles that could run on several different fuels (such as

gasoline and CNG), increase federal research and development on natural gas vehicle tank and

fuel line technologies, and revise vehicle emission regulations to encourage manufacturers to

produce more CNG passenger cars.

 

Legislation pending in the 113th Congress includes proposals that would extend expired tax

credits for refueling property and fuel cell vehicles (S. 2260), authorize the use of energy savings

performance contracts to support the use of natural gas and electric vehicles (S. 761), and require

the U.S. Postal Service to study the feasibility of using natural gas and propane in long-haul

trucks (S. 1486)

 

Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Change in U.S. Natural Gas Supply ................................................................................................ 1

Vehicle Technologies Using Natural Gas......................................................................................... 3

Compressed Natural Gas ........................................................................................................... 3

Liquefied Natural Gas ............................................................................................................... 5

Methanol .................................................................................................................................... 6

Propane Autogas ........................................................................................................................ 7

Other Natural Gas Fuels ............................................................................................................ 8

Natural-Gas-Based Electricity ................................................................................................... 9

Prospects for Growth ..................................................................................................................... 10

Refueling Network .................................................................................................................. 10

Cars and CNG ................................................................................................................... 10

Trucks and LNG ................................................................................................................ 11

Methanol ........................................................................................................................... 13

Propane Autogas ................................................................................................................ 13

Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles ............................................................................................. 14

Electric Vehicles ................................................................................................................ 14

Vehicle Conversions ................................................................................................................ 14

Emissions and Fuel Economy ........................................................................................................ 15

Air Emissions .......................................................................................................................... 15

Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas Standards ....................................................................... 16

Existing Federal and State Programs ............................................................................................. 17

Federal Programs ..................................................................................................................... 17

Energy Policy Act of 1992 ................................................................................................ 17

Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program ................................................... 17

CMAQ ............................................................................................................................... 17

ARPA-E ............................................................................................................................. 18

Clean Cities Program ........................................................................................................ 18

State Programs ......................................................................................................................... 18

Congressional Involvement ........................................................................................................... 19

Tax Policy ................................................................................................................................ 20

Other Federal Legislation ........................................................................................................ 21

 

Figures

Figure 1. U.S. Natural Gas Production ............................................................................................ 2

Figure 2. Retail Diesel and Natural Gas Price Trends ..................................................................... 3

Figure 3. Cross-Section of a CNG Vehicle ...................................................................................... 4

Figure 4. CNG Refueling Stations ................................................................................................. 11

Figure 5. LNG Refueling Stations ................................................................................................. 13

 

Tables

Table 1. Tax Provisions Affecting Natural Gas Vehicles ............................................................... 21

 

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 23

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 23

 

________________________________________________________________________

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] CRS: STATE MINIMUM WAGES: AN OVERVIEW [18 November 2014]

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

________________________________________________________________________

This service is supported, in part, by donations. Please consider making a donation by following the instructions at http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/iws/news-bureau/support.html

 

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

 

State Minimum Wages: An Overview

David H. Bradley, Specialist in Labor Economics

November 18, 2014

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43792.pdf

[full-text, 37 pages]

 

Summary

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), enacted in 1938, is the federal legislation that establishes

the general minimum wage that must be paid to all covered workers. While the FLSA mandates

broad minimum wage coverage, states have the option of establishing minimum wage rates that

are different from those set in it. Under the provisions of the FLSA, an individual is generally

covered by the higher of the state or federal minimum wage.

 

As of January 1, 2015, 29 states and the District of Columbia will have minimum wage rates

above the federal rate of $7.25 per hour, with rates ranging from $0.25 to $2.25 above the federal

rate. Two states will have minimum wage rates below the federal rate and five states have no state

minimum wage requirement. The remaining 14 states have minimum wage rates equal to the

federal rate.

 

In any given year, the exact number of states with a minimum wage rate above the federal rate

may vary, depending on the interaction between the federal rate and the mechanisms in place to

adjust the state minimum wage. Adjusting minimum wage rates is typically done in one of two

ways: (1) 10 states have legislatively scheduled rate increases that may include one or several

increments; (2) 11 states use a measure of inflation to index the value of the minimum wage to

the general change in prices. In addition to the 11 states currently using an inflation adjustment,

four states and DC have chosen a hybrid approach that provides a series of scheduled rate

increases, followed by inflation indexation for future minimum wage changes. Thus, a total of 15

states and DC currently, or will in a future year, index state minimum wage rates to a measure of

inflation. The remaining 25 states, some of which have minimum wage rates above the federal

rate, do not have an adjustment mechanism in place.

 

Because the federal and state minimum wage rates change at various times and in various

increments, the share of the labor force for which the federal rate is the binding wage floor has

changed over time. Since 1981, there have been three series of increases in the federal minimum

wage rate—1990-1991, 1996-1997, and 2007-2009. During that same period, there have been

numerous changes in state minimum wage policies. As a result of those interactions, the share of

the U.S. civilian labor force for which the federal minimum wage is the floor has fluctuated but

generally declined, and is about 39% as of the beginning of 2015.

 

Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

FLSA Minimum Wage Coverage ..................................................................................................... 1

Enterprise Coverage .................................................................................................................. 2

Individual Coverage .................................................................................................................. 2

Minimum Wage Policies in the States ............................................................................................. 2

Rates and Mechanisms of Adjustment ............................................................................................. 3

Rates .......................................................................................................................................... 3

Mechanisms for Future Adjustments ......................................................................................... 5

Legislatively Scheduled Increases....................................................................................... 5

Indexing to Inflation ............................................................................................................ 5

Reference to the Federal Rate ............................................................................................. 6

Trends in State Minimum Wages ..................................................................................................... 7

 

Figures

Figure 1. State Minimum Wage Rates ............................................................................................. 4

Figure 2. The Share of the U.S. Labor Force Residing in States in Which the Federal Minimum Wage is Higher Than the State Minimum Wage .............. 9

 

Tables

Table 1. Summary of States with Enacted Minimum Wage Rates Above $7.25 ............................. 6

Table A-1. Selected State Minimum Wage Policies ....................................................................... 12

 

Appendixes

Appendix. Selected Characteristics of State Minimum Wage Policies .......................................... 11

 

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 34

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 34

 

________________________________________________________________________

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] McKinsey: OVERCOMING OBESITY: AN INITIAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS [20 November 2014]

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

________________________________________________________________________

This service is supported, in part, by donations. Please consider making a donation by following the instructions at http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/iws/news-bureau/support.html

 

McKinsey Global Institute

Discussion Paper

 

OVERCOMING OBESITY: AN INITIAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS [20 November 2014]

by Richard Dobbs, Corinne Sawers, Fraser Thompson, James Manyika, Jonathan Woetzel, Peter Child, Sorcha McKenna, and Angela Spatharou

http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/economic_studies/how_the_world_could_better_fight_obesity

or

http://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/dotcom/Insights/Economic%20Studies/How%20the%20world%20could%20better%20fight%20obesity/MGI%20Obesity_Full%20report_November%202014.ashx

[full-text, 120 pages]

 

Executive Summary

http://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/dotcom/Insights/Economic%20Studies/How%20the%20world%20could%20better%20fight%20obesity/MGI%20Obesity_Executive%20summary_November%202014.ashx

 

The main findings of this discussion paper include:

 

·         Existing evidence indicates that no single intervention is likely to have a significant overall impact. A systemic, sustained portfolio of initiatives, delivered at scale, is needed to reverse the health burden. Almost all the identified interventions (Exhibit 2) are cost effective for society—savings on healthcare costs and higher productivity could outweigh the direct investment required by the intervention when assessed over the full lifetime of the target population. In the United Kingdom, for instance, such a program could reverse rising obesity, saving the National Health Service about $1.2 billion a year.

 

·         Education and personal responsibility are critical elements of any program aiming to reduce obesity, but they are not sufficient on their own. Other required interventions rely less on conscious choices by individuals and more on changes to the environment and societal norms. They include reducing default portion sizes, changing marketing practices, and restructuring urban and education environments to facilitate physical activities.

 

·         No individual sector in society can address obesity on its own—not governments, retailers, consumer-goods companies, restaurants, employers, media organizations, educators, healthcare providers, or individuals. Capturing the full potential impact requires engagement from as many sectors as possible. Successful precedents suggest that a combination of top-down corporate and government interventions, together with bottom-up community-led ones, will be required to change public-health outcomes. Moreover, some kind of coordination will probably be required to capture potentially high-impact industry interventions, since any first mover faces market-share risks.

 

·         Implementing an obesity-abatement program on the required scale will not be easy. We see four imperatives: (1) as many interventions as possible should be deployed at scale and delivered effectively by the full range of sectors in society; (2) understanding how to align incentives and build cooperation will be critical to success; (3) there should not be an undue focus on prioritizing interventions, as this can hamper constructive action; and (4) while investment in research should continue, society should also engage in trial and error, particularly where risks are low.

 

Contents

In brief

Executive summary 1

1. The obesity crisis 11

2. Tackling obesity 31

3. Moving toward action 51

Appendix 61

Bibliography 71

 

________________________________________________________________________

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: 2013 SERVICE ANNUAL SURVEY [19 November 2014]

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

________________________________________________________________________

This service is supported, in part, by donations. Please consider making a donation by following the instructions at http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/iws/news-bureau/support.html

 

Census

Release Number: CB14-205

 

2013 SERVICE ANNUAL SURVEY [19 November 2014]

http://www.census.gov/services/index.html

 

Press Release 19 November 2014

Revenue Increased in All Service Sectors in 2013, Census Bureau Reports

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2014/cb14-205.html

 

Revenue increased in all of the nation’s 11 service sectors for employer firms, according to 2013 Service Annual Survey statistics released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. Within the utilities sector, natural gas distribution showed a revenue increase of 15.7 percent, from $82.2 billion in 2012 to $95.1 billion in 2013. 

The Service Annual Survey provides the most comprehensive national statistics available each year on service industry activity in the U.S. In 2009, the survey expanded to include data for all service industries, which account for approximately 55 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product. 

Highlights from service sectors:

Utilities

§  Private sector utility revenue for 2013 was $541.0 billion, up 5.6 percent from $512.1 billion in 2012.

Transportation and Warehousing

§  Revenue for transportation and warehousing for 2013 was $815.8 billion, up 4.1 percent from $783.9 billion in 2012.

§  Pipeline transportation showed $36.5 billion in revenue for 2013, up 5.7 percent from $34.6 billion in 2012.

Information

§  Information sector revenue for 2013 was $1.3 trillion, up 3.4 percent from 2012.

§   Within the sector, the revenue for software publishers for 2013 was $172.3 billion, up 6.8 percent from $161.3 billion in 2012.

§  In 2013, the revenue for wireless telecommunication carriers (except satellite) was $226.0 billion, up 3.4 percent from $218.5 billion in 2012.

§  Data processing, hosting, and related services revenue for 2013 was $95.5 billion, up 6.4 percent from $89.8 billion in 2012.

§  Revenue for Internet publishing and broadcasting and Web search portals for 2013 was $62.5 billion, up 10.3 percent from $56.7 billion in 2012.

Finance and Insurance

§  Finance and insurance revenue for 2013 was $3.6 trillion, up 2.3 percent from 2012. 

§  Financial transactions processing, reserve, and clearinghouse activities showed $47.6 billion in revenue for 2013, up 12.2 percent from $42.5 billion in 2012.

§  Portfolio management had $206.0 billion in revenue for 2013, up 10.7 percent from $186.0 billion in 2012.

§  Investment advice revenue for 2013 was $31.8 billion, up 13.8 percent from $27.9 billion in 2012.

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing

§  Real estate and rental and leasing had $497.1 billion in revenue for 2013, up 7.0 percent from $464.6 billion in 2012.

Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services

§  Professional, scientific, and technical services revenue for 2013 was $1.5 trillion, up 2.0 percent from 2012.

Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services

§  Administrative and support and waste management and remediation services had revenue of $745.2 billion for 2013, up 4.0 percent from $716.9 billion in 2012.

Educational Services

§  Educational services revenue for 2013 was $56.9 billion, up 3.8 percent from $54.8 billion in 2012.

Health Care and Social Assistance

§  Health care and social assistance revenue for 2013 was $2.2 trillion, up 2.7 percent  from 2012.

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation

§  The arts, entertainment, and recreation sector had revenue of $222.2 billion for 2013, up 4.7 percent from $212.2 billion in 2012.

Other Services (Except Public Administration)

§  Other services (except public administration) revenue for 2013 was $448.2 billion, up 6.0 percent from $422.7 billion in 2012.

-X-

Percent changes quoted in the release are calculated using estimates rounded to millions as provided in the tables. Also, note that estimates are not adjusted for price changes.

As is the case with all surveys, statistics from sample surveys are subject to sampling and nonsampling error. All comparisons made in this release have been tested and found to be statistically significant at the 90 percent confidence level, unless otherwise noted. Please consult thetables for measures of sampling variability. For more information about the Service Annual Survey, including information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/services/sas/sastechdoc.html.

 

________________________________________________________________________

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] World Bank: THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE 2014 EBOLA EPIDEMIC: SHORT- AND MEDIUM-TERM ESTIMATES FOR WEST AFRICA [20 November 2014]

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

________________________________________________________________________

This service is supported, in part, by donations. Please consider making a donation by following the instructions at http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/iws/news-bureau/support.html

 

World Bank

 

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE 2014 EBOLA EPIDEMIC: SHORT- AND MEDIUM-TERM ESTIMATES FOR WEST AFRICA [20 November 2014]

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/20592

or

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/20592/9781464804380.pdf?sequence=3

[full-text, 109 pages]

 

Beyond the terrible toll in human lives and suffering, the Ebola epidemic currently afflicting West Africa is already having a measurable economic impact in terms of forgone output; higher fiscal deficits; rising prices; lower real household incomes and greater poverty. These economic impacts include the costs of healthcare and forgone productivity of those directly affected but, more importantly, they arise from choices by others to avoid exposure to the disease, called 'aversion behavior'. This report provides a systematic analysis of the channels of economic impact and the likely magnitude of that impact for Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, as well as West Africa as a whole.

 

 The short-term (2014) impact of Ebola on economic output is on the order of US$359 million in foregone output in 2013 prices. Two alternative scenarios are used to estimate the medium-term (2015) impact of the epidemic. A 'Low Ebola' scenario corresponds to rapid containment within the three most severely affected countries, while 'High Ebola' corresponds to slower containment in the core three countries, with some broader regional contagion. The estimates of the GDP lost as a result of the epidemic in the core three countries for 2015 alone sum to US$97 million under Low Ebola (implying some recovery from 2014), and US$809 million under High Ebola (in 2013 dollars).

 

 Over the medium term, however, both epidemiological and economic contagion in the broader sub-region of West Africa is likely. This report uses a multi-country general equilibrium model to estimate the medium-term impact on output for West Africa as a whole. Under Low Ebola, the loss in GDP for the sub-region is estimated to be US$2.2 billion in 2014 and US$1.6 billion in 2015. Under High Ebola, the estimates are US$7.4 billion in 2014, and US$25.2 billion in 2015.

 

 This analysis shows that the economic impacts are already very serious in the core three countries - particularly Liberia and Sierra Leone - and could become catastrophic under a slow-containment, High Ebola scenario. In broader regional terms, the economic impacts could be limited if immediate national and international responses succeed in containing the epidemic and mitigating aversion behavior. If, on the other hand, the epidemic spreads into neighboring countries, some of which have much larger economies, the cumulative two-year impact could reach US$32.6 billion by the end of 2015 - almost 2.5 times the combined 2013 GDP of the core three countries.

 

________________________________________________________________________

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] Eurostat: MIGRANT INTEGRATION STATISTICS--SOCIAL INCLUSION [21 November 2014]

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

________________________________________________________________________

This service is supported, in part, by donations. Please consider making a donation by following the instructions at http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/iws/news-bureau/support.html

 

European Commission

Eurostat

 

MIGRANT INTEGRATION STATISTICS--SOCIAL INCLUSION [21 November 2014]

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Migrant_integration_statistics_-_social_inclusion

 

Data from July 2014. Most recent data: Further Eurostat information, Main tables and Database.

Migrants play an important role in the labour markets and economies of the countries they settle in. This article presents European Union statistics on the social inclusion of migrants as part of monitoring their integration and assessing their situation in the labour market. This in turn makes it easier to evaluate the outcomes of integration policies.

The indicators presented in this article are based on the Council conclusions on integration of 2010, the subsequent study ‘Indicators of immigrant integration — a pilot study’ (2011) and the report ‘Using EU indicators of immigrant integration’ (2013).

The present article elaborates on the existing Zaragoza indicators [1] on social inclusion together with some proposed additional ones. The indicators presented here cover the following social inclusion areas:

§  people at risk of poverty and social exclusion;

§  income distribution and monetary poverty;

§  living conditions;

§  material deprivation.

In this article, data which are presented in the tables but are affected by low reliability due to small sample size or high non-response rates, are not used in the analysis.

For the purpose of this article the following terms are being used to describe various migrants groups.

For the population by country of birth:

§  Native-born – means population born in the reporting country

§  Foreign-born – means population born outside the reporting country

§  EU-born – means population born in the EU, except the reporting country

§  Non-EU-born – means population born outside the EU

For the population by citizenship:

§  Nationals – means citizens of the reporting country

§  Foreign citizens – means non-citizens of the reporting country

§  EU citizens – means citizens of the EU countries, except the reporting country

§  Non-EU citizens – means citizens of non-EU countries

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

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?