Thursday, January 31, 2013
Tweet[IWS] ADB: INVESTING IN RESILIENCE: ENSURING A DISASTER-RESISTANT FUTURE [31 January 2013]
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
________________________________________________________________________
Asian Development Bank (ADB)
INVESTING IN RESILIENCE: ENSURING A DISASTER-RESISTANT FUTURE [31 January 2013]
http://www.adb.org/publications/investing-resilience-ensuring-disaster-resistant-future
or
http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/pub/2013/investing-in-resilience.pdf
[full-text, 188 pages]
Description
Natural hazards continue to cause significant loss of life and have significant social and economic consequences for people in Asia and the Pacific. Yet, these losses are far from inevitable. There is a wide range of tools and mechanisms available to assess, reduce, and manage risk, covering a vast array of legislative, regulatory, policy, planning, institutional, financial, and capacity-building instruments. Moreover, there is increasing public awareness of the need to strengthen disaster resilience at all levels of society as a critical component of efforts to achieve sustainable socioeconomic development and poverty reduction.
This report offers an approach and ideas for reflection, inviting readers to consider how we can ensure that the actions that we know are required to strengthen resilience are actually taken. It is primarily aimed at investors in the public sphere, namely governments and their development partners.
The report is not a manual or handbook and deliberately does not present prescribed courses of action. Instead, it establishes a vision of a resilient future and equips investors with a framework and ideas to identify practical actions that will result in the realization of that vision.
The vision shows how resilience can be accomplished through the coordinated action of governments and their development partners in the private sector, civil society, and the international community. It stresses the interconnectedness and complementarity of possible actions to achieve resilience across a wide range of development policies, plans, legislation, sectors, and themes.
Critical Next Steps
The report identifies eight critical next steps toward strengthened resilience, building on the gaps and challenges identified in the report:
Policy Change
- Governments can review and, where appropriate, revise disaster risk management legislative and regulatory frameworks to clarify and explicitly articulate the precise roles and responsibilities of individual households, communities, the private sector, governments, and the international community in strengthening resilience.
Risk Assessment
- Governments can ensure that some form of disaster risk assessment is undertaken for all new investments in their countries, whether financed directly by a government, via support from the international community, or privately.
Financing
- National and subnational governments can develop and implement comprehensive disaster risk financing strategies to reduce risk and to provide adequate and timely post-disaster support to strengthen financial resilience.
- Governments, in cooperation with the international community, can encourage the growth and development of the insurance and reinsurance sectors in their countries and generally provide for a range of disaster risk financing instruments.
- Governments, in cooperation with the international community, can establish public programs of financial support for community and local investment in risk assessment, risk reduction, and residual risk management.
Private Sector Engagement
- Governments, working in cooperation with the international community, can develop programs of work to strengthen private sector understanding and appreciation of the commercial opportunities in strengthening resilience.
Knowledge Management
- Governments and regional associations, working in cooperation with the international community and private sector partners, can establish an open-source, regional, online information platform to facilitate the development, exchange, and dissemination of hazard and risk data, including climate change modeling.
- Governments and regional associations, working in cooperation with the international community, can establish a regional knowledge-development and capacity-building program to strengthen understanding across government and the wider society of the potential returns on investments in risk assessment, risk reduction, and residual risk management.
Contents
- Foreword
- Executive Summary
- Disasters and Development: Instruments and Mechanisms for Strengthened Resilience
- Visions of the Future: Overcoming Gaps and Obstacles
- Financing Residual Risk
- Achieving Resilience
- References and Glossary
________________________________________________________________________
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.
[IWS] OECD: COLOMBIA 2013: ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT [31 January 2013]
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
________________________________________________________________________
OECD
ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF COLOMBIA 2013 [31 January 2013]
http://www.oecd.org/eco/surveys/colombia2013.htm
or
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/book/eco_surveys-col-2013-en
or
[full-text, 138 pages]
or
read online at
Press Release 31 January 2013
Colombia's economic outlook is strong, but deep challenges remain, OECD says
http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/colombiaseconomicoutlookisstrongbutdeepchallengesremainoecdsays.htm
31/01/2013 - The Colombian economy is strong and the outlook is promising, but the country must do more to ensure that the ongoing commodities boom contributes to sustainable and inclusive growth over the long-term, according to the OECD’s latest Economic Assessment of Colombia.
The Assessment, presented today in Bogota by OECD Deputy Secretary-General and Chief Economist Pier Carlo Padoan, Colombian Minister of Finance and Public Credit Mauricio Cardenas and Central Bank Governor Jose Dario Uribe, details the significant economic reforms enacted in recent years and their role in the country's resilience to the global economic crisis. It also highlights the key challenges facing Colombia as it seeks to bring about higher and more balanced economic growth - notably the need to adjust to the commodities boom, boost productivity and reduce income inequality.
“Commodity exports are booming, improved security is attracting new investment and confidence is on the rise, but there is still more to be done,” Mr Padoan said. “The challenge is to ensure that the benefits of today's mining boom pays forward a better future for the next generation."
[Chart]
The OECD identifies priority areas for action:
Adjusting to the commodity boom. The mining boom has triggered large swings in the real exchange rate and undermined the competitiveness of other tradable sectors - a well-known condition facing natural resource exporters known as "Dutch disease." Colombia has already enacted important reforms - including a credible inflation targeting regime, strong bank supervision, consolidation of public finances and a new royalty law - but additional adjustments would be welcome. Effective implementation of the new royalty law can result in more viable projects. Mining revenues can be used to fund improvements to the education system and the creation of high-quality infrastructure, both of which will improve Colombia's competitiveness. Promoting greater openness to trade, stronger competition and flexibility across the economy, in particular through labour market reforms, are important additional steps.
Reducing income inequality. Colombia faces high levels of income inequality and poverty, both of which are largely driven by unemployment and informality. Labour market reforms are needed to boost job creation and reduce the share of informal workers. This will require better educational outcomes and the reform of restrictive labour market regulations. The minimum wage should be differentiated by region, while the high level of social security contributions and parafiscales, which work against formal job creation, should be reduced. The tax system could also be made more progressive, through removal of exemptions that largely benefit the richest taxpayers. Raising additional revenues would also allow for the expansion of social programmes.
Boosting productivity and implementing further reforms to ensure sustainable growth. Government policy should seek to promote productivity across the economy, notably through the education and training system. Policies are also needed to further improve transport infrastructure, grow private investment, reduce barriers to entrepreneurship, improve access to finance and strengthen the rule of law, to ensure better contract enforcement and less corruption.
Further information on the Economic Assessment of Colombia is available at: www.oecd.org/eco/surveys/colombia2013.htm. You are invited to include this Internet link in coverage.
________________________________________________________________________
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.
[IWS] CRS: TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FIRMS: ECONOMIC, PROGRAM, AND POLICY ISSUES [28 January 2013]
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
________________________________________________________________________
Congressional Research Service (CRS)
Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms: Economic, Program, and Policy Issues
J. F. Hornbeck, Specialist in International Trade and Finance
January 28, 2013
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20210.pdf
[full-text, 11 pages]
Summary
Although trade liberalization can enhance the economic welfare of all trade partners, it also
causes difficult adjustment problems for some import-competing firms and workers. Congress has
responded to these problems with trade adjustment assistance (TAA) programs for workers, firms,
and farmers. This report discusses the TAA for Firms (TAAF) program and related policy issues.
Congress first authorized TAA in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (P.L. 87-794), including a new
firm and industry assistance program, now administered by the Economic Development
Administration (EDA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce. It provides technical assistance to
help trade-affected firms make strategic adjustments to improve their competitiveness in a
dynamic global economy.
The 111th Congress reauthorized a more extensive TAA program for firms that expanded
eligibility to services firms, increased authorized funding levels, provided greater flexibility for a
firm to demonstrate eligibility for assistance, established new oversight and evaluation criteria,
created a new position of Director of Adjustment Assistance for Firms, and required submission
to Congress of a detailed annual report on the TAAF program. Congress allowed those expanded
provisions to expire on February 13, 2011, but the 112th Congress, in passing the Trade
Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-4), extended the firms program through
December 31, 2013,with many, of the enhanced program provisions reinstated retroactively,
including extending benefits to services firms. It is funded annually at $16 million.
EDA has released four annual reports under the new statutory requirements that point to
administrative and operational improvements. The FY 2012 TAAF annual report further notes
that two years after completion of the program, on average, firm sales increased by 26.8%,
employment rose by 13.2%, and productivity increased by 11.9%, better outcomes than the
benchmark manufacturing industry as a whole. This outcome is reported as being particularly
encouraging given TAAF firms have had such a high “survival rate,” and yet face the additional
burden of all having to adjust to import competition compared to the benchmark. Still these
numbers varied significantly from the year before, and despite the high success rate for firms that
“completed” the TAAF program, it is important to note that they represent only about half of all
firms that had their adjustment proposals approved for assistance. The rest left the program for
numerous reasons without completing the adjustment plan and were no longer monitored.
To address the evaluation issue more completely, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
conducted a comprehensive evaluation of TAAF program in 2012. It found that EDA’s
administration and evaluation efforts had improved markedly because of changes provided in the
2009 legislation. GAO also confirmed EDA’s assessment that trade-impacted firms benefitted
from specialized attention provided by TAAF assistance, but to a lesser extent. GAO found a
“small and statistically significant relationship between program participation and sales,” which
was particularly relevant to smaller firms, albeit also highly correlated with firms operating in
high-growth industries. Employment effects were not found to be statistically significant.
For a broader policy discussion on TAA, see CRS Report R41922, Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA) and Its Role in U.S. Trade Policy, by J. F. Hornbeck. See also CRS Report R42012, Trade
Adjustment Assistance for Workers, by Benjamin Collins and CRS Report R40206, Trade
Adjustment Assistance for Farmers, by Remy Jurenas.
Contents
Background and Recent Developments ........................................................................................... 1
The Economics of Trade Adjustment ............................................................................................... 2
The Firm Trade Adjustment Assistance Program ............................................................................ 3
Eligibility and Certification ....................................................................................................... 4
Program Evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 6
EDA Annual Reports on TAAF ................................................................................................. 6
GAO 2012 Report ...................................................................................................................... 7
Tables
Table 1. Firm TAA Authorizations and Appropriations, FY2001-2013 ........................................... 3
Table 2. Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms, Select Program Indicators for FY2003- 2012 ....................................... 5
Contacts
Author Contact Information............................................................................................................. 8
________________________________________________________________________
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.
[IWS] BLS: EMPLOYMENT COST INDEX - DECEMBER 2012 [31 January 2013]
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
________________________________________________________________________
EMPLOYMENT COST INDEX - DECEMBER 2012 [31 January 2013]
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.nr0.htm
or
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/eci.pdf
[full-text, 21 pages]
and
Supplemental Files Table of Contents
http://www.bls.gov/web/eci.supp.toc.htm
Compensation costs for civilian workers increased 0.5 percent, seasonally adjusted, for the 3-month
period ending December 2012, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Wages and salaries
(which make up about 70 percent of compensation costs) increased 0.3 percent, and benefits (which
make up the remaining 30 percent of compensation) increased 0.6 percent.
Civilian Workers
Compensation costs for civilian workers increased 1.9 percent for the 12-month period ending
December 2012, essentially unchanged from the December 2011 increase of 2.0 percent. Wages and
salaries increased 1.7 percent for the current 12-month period. In December 2011 the increase was
1.4 percent. Benefit costs increased 2.5 percent for the 12-month period ending December 2012, down
from the December 2011 increase, which was 3.2 percent.
Private Industry Workers
Compensation costs for private industry workers increased 1.9 percent over the year. In December 2011
the increase was 2.2 percent. Wages and salaries increased 1.7 percent for the current 12-month period,
essentially unchanged from the 12-month period ending December 2011, which was 1.6 percent. The
increase in the cost of benefits was 2.2 percent for the 12-month period ending December 2012, down
from the December 2011 increase of 3.6 percent. Employer costs for health benefits increased
2.8 percent over the year. In December 2011 the increase was 3.5 percent.
Among occupational groups, compensation cost increases for private industry workers for the
12-month period ending December 2012 ranged from 1.7 percent for natural resources, construction, and
maintenance occupations; production, transportation, and material moving occupations; and service
occupations to 2.0 percent for management, professional, and related occupations; and sales and office
occupations.
Among industry supersectors, compensation cost increases for private industry workers for the current
12-month period ranged from 1.1 percent for leisure and hospitality to 3.9 percent for information.
State and Local Government Workers
Compensation costs for state and local government workers increased 1.9 percent for the 12-month
period ending December 2012, higher than the December 2011 increase of 1.3 percent. Values for this
series—which began in June 1982—have ranged from 1.3 percent to 9.6 percent. Wages and salaries
increased 1.1 percent for the 12-month period ending December 2012, essentially unchanged from a year
earlier when the increase was 1.0 percent. Prior values for this series, which also began in June 1982,
ranged from 1.0 percent to 8.5 percent. Benefit costs increased 3.4 percent in December 2012, up from
the December 2011 increase of 2.1 percent.
AND 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.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Tweet[IWS] BLS: METROPOLITAN AREA EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT -- DECEMBER 2012 [30 January 2013]
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
________________________________________________________________________
METROPOLITAN AREA EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT -- DECEMBER 2012 [30 January 2013]
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/metro.nr0.htm
or
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/metro.pdf
[full-text, 24 pages]
and
Supplemental Files Table of Contents
http://www.bls.gov/web/metro.supp.toc.htm
Unemployment rates were lower in December than a year earlier in 290 of the 372
metropolitan areas, higher in 68 areas, and unchanged in 14 areas, the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Seven areas recorded jobless rates
of at least 15.0 percent, while 33 areas registered rates of less than 5.0
percent. Two hundred eighty-three metropolitan areas reported over-the-year
increases in nonfarm payroll employment, 83 reported decreases, and 6 had no
change. The national unemployment rate in December was 7.6 percent, not
seasonally adjusted, down from 8.3 percent a year earlier.
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.
[IWS] Census: HOMEOWNERSHIP AMONG THE FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION: 2011 [30 January 2013]
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
________________________________________________________________________
Census
American Community Survey Briefs
ACSBR/11-15
HOMEOWNERSHIP AMONG THE FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION: 2011 [30 January 2013]
By Edward N. Trevelyan, Yesenia D. Acosta, and Patricia De La Cruz
http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-15.pdf
[full-text, 11 pages]
Press Release 30 January 2013
Census Bureau Report Shows Homeownership Rates Among Foreign-Born Increase with Time in the United States and Citizenship
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than half (52 percent) of foreign-born householders owned their homes in 2011. In contrast, about two-thirds (67 percent) of native-born householders owned their homes.
A new report, Homeownership Among the Foreign-Born Population: 2011, released today, examines the homeownership and renter status among foreign-born households based on data from the 2011 American Community Survey.
“Homeownership is a goal shared by many residents of the United States, both native- and foreign-born, citizen and noncitizen,” said Elizabeth Grieco, chief of the Foreign-Born Population Branch at the Census Bureau. “For immigrants in particular — who maintain nearly one in seven households in the U.S. — making the transition from renter to homeowner represents a significant investment in the United States.”
A household is designated as native- or foreign-born based on the nativity of the householder, regardless of the other occupants' nativity. A householder is the person, or one of the people, in whose name the home is owned, being bought or rented. Country and region of origin of the household are based on the nativity of the householder as well.
This report found that foreign-born naturalized citizens were more likely to own their homes than foreign-born noncitizens. In naturalized citizen households, 66 percent were owner-occupied. That compares with 34 percent of noncitizen households.
Rates of homeownership among foreign-born households also increased with time spent in the United States. Among foreign-born households with a householder who entered the country before 1980, nearly three-fourths were owned rather than rented. Among households headed by someone who entered the U.S. since 2000, only one-fourth were owned.
According to the brief, just 10 metropolitan statistical areas accounted for about half the nation's foreign-born households in 2011, led by New York and Los Angeles, each of which had more than 1 million foreign-born households. Rounding out the top five were Miami, Chicago and Houston.
Nearly half, or about 45 percent, of the metropolitan areas in the Northeast, particularly in New York and Pennsylvania, exceeded the national homeownership average for foreign-born households of 52 percent. These areas included Allentown, Pa.; Lancaster, Pa.; Philadelphia; Poughkeepsie, N.Y.; Rochester, N.Y.; and Syracuse, N.Y.
Homeownership by the foreign-born varied considerably around the country. States such as Alaska, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire and New Mexico had homeownership rates of about 60 percent among foreign-born households. In contrast, fewer than 40 percent of foreign-born households were owned rather than rented in Washington, D.C., and New York.
There was considerable variation in homeownership rates among the various region-of-birth households in 2011. For example, 66 percent of households with a householder from Europe were owner-occupied, compared with 40 percent of households headed by someone born in Africa. In general, foreign-born households with a householder from Europe, Asia and other regions were more likely to own their homes than those headed by someone from Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean.
The American Community Survey provides a wide range of important statistics about people and housing for every community across the nation. The results are used by everyone from town and city planners to retailers and homebuilders. The survey is the only source of local estimates for most of the 40 topics it covers, such as education, occupation, language, ancestry and housing costs for even the smallest communities. Ever since Thomas Jefferson directed the first census in 1790, the census has collected detailed characteristics about our nation's people. Questions about jobs and the economy were added 20 years later under James Madison, who said such information would allow Congress to “adapt the public measures to the particular circumstances of the community,” and over the decades, allow America “an opportunity of marking the progress of the society.”
-X-
Editor's note: The data presented in this brief are based on the 2011 American Community Survey sample. Measures of the sampling errors are provided in the form of margins of error for estimates in the brief. For more information on sampling and estimation methods, confidentiality protection, and sampling and nonsampling errors, please see: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_of_Data_2011.pdf.
________________________________________________________________________
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.
[IWS] NCSL: 2012 IMMIGRATION-RELATED LAWS AND RESOLUTIONS IN THE STATES (JAN. 1-DEC. 31, 2012) [30 January 2013]
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
________________________________________________________________________
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)
2012 Immigration-Related Laws and Resolutions in the States (Jan. 1–Dec. 31, 2012) [30 January 2013]
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/immig/2012-immigration-related-laws-jan-december-2012.aspx
[scroll down this page to see charts, maps, tables, etc.]
Press Release 30 January 2013
NCSL Releases New Report: 2012 Immigration-Related Laws and Resolutions in the States (Jan. 1–Dec. 31, 2012)
http://www.ncsl.org/press-room/immigration-laws-by-the-numbers-in-2012.aspx
The number of immigration-related bills introduced and passed at the state level in 2012 dipped in comparison with the last five years, yet remains high overall. There are several explanations for the dip, including the May 2012 Supreme Court Arizona v. United States ruling in which only the lawful stop provision was upheld, and the fact that four state legislatures did not meet in 2012, including Montana, North Dakota, Nevada and Texas.
“States seemed to put the brakes on immigration bills early in 2012, pending budget and redistricting debates, and most important, the review of Arizona’s immigration law by the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Ann Morse, director of the NCSL Immigrant Policy Project. “By the end of 2012, however, the number of laws was down by only 13 percent, meaning that states continue to engage on immigration issues in budgets, law enforcement, employment, licensing and benefits.”
In 2012, state legislators in 46 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico introduced 983 bills and resolutions related to immigration. This marks a decline of 39 percent compared with 2011, during which 1,606 bills were introduced. The decrease in the number of enacted bills and resolutions was less pronounced: 267 in 2012 compared with 306 in 2011, a decline of just 13 percent.
Of the bills and resolutions enacted, nearly a quarter were budget related, appropriating funds for federal programs such as English language acquisition, naturalization and refugee resettlement.
Law enforcement legislation accounted for 17 percent of the total. Four states—Kansas, Louisiana, Maine and Utah—enacted laws that specify permissible documents for registering and maintaining records on sex offenders, including travel and immigration documents.
Employment, identification/driver’s license and public benefits comprised 9 percent of all 2012 immigration laws. Massachusetts, for example, prohibited the registration of a motor vehicle or trailer unless the person holds a license, specified identification card, Social Security number or proof of legal presence.
Education and health care each accounted for eight percent of the total. In New Hampshire, legislation was enacted requiring every student receiving in-state tuition to sign an affidavit of legal residence beginning in 2013. Nebraska restored prenatal care and pregnancy-related services for immigrant mothers through the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Human trafficking laws made up 6 percent of the total. A law passed in South Carolina makes it a crime to destroy, withhold or confiscate any type of identification document including a driver’s license, passport or immigration document in the attempt to detain a victim.
Of the 111 immigration-related resolutions passed in 2012, 12 urged the U.S. Congress and president to take action on immigration, trade, tourism and border security.
________________________________________________________________________
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.
[IWS] CRS: FEDERAL PROGRAMS AVAILABLE TO UNEMPLOYED WORKERS [9 January 2013]
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
________________________________________________________________________
Congressional Research Service (CRS)
Federal Programs Available to Unemployed Workers
Katelin P. Isaacs, Coordinator, Analyst in Income Security
David H. Bradley, Specialist in Labor Economics
Benjamin Collins, Analyst in Labor Policy
Janemarie Mulvey, Specialist in Health Care Financing
January 9, 2013
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34251.pdf
[full-text, 18 pages]
Summary
Four groups of federal programs target unemployed workers: unemployment insurance, health
care assistance, job search assistance, and training. This report presents information on federal
programs targeted to unemployed workers specifically, but does not attempt to discuss meanstested
programs (such as Medicaid or SSI) that are available regardless of employment status.
When eligible workers lose their jobs, the Unemployment Compensation (UC) program may
provide up to 26 weeks of income support through the payment of regular UC benefits.
Unemployment benefits may be extended by the temporarily authorized Emergency
Unemployment Compensation (EUC08) program. Unemployment benefits may also be extended
for up to 13 or 20 weeks by the permanent Extended Benefit (EB) program if certain economic
conditions exist within the state. Workers whose job loss is caused by foreign competition may be
eligible for extended income support through the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers
(TAA) program. If an unemployed worker is not eligible to receive UC benefits and the worker’s
unemployment may be directly attributed to a declared major disaster, a worker may be eligible to
receive Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA) benefits.
Two federal laws may aid unemployed workers in the purchase of health insurance. The first, the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), allows unemployed
workers in certain circumstances to continue health insurance coverage from their employers. The
second, the Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC), allows certain TAA participants to receive an
advanceable and refundable tax credit for purchasing qualified health insurance.
Federal support for Americans seeking assistance to obtain, retain, or change employment is
undertaken by a national system of local One-Stop Career Centers (One-Stops) that were
established by the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998. A variety of services and partner
programs—notably including UC and TAA—are located within or linked to One-Stops, which
primarily provide job search assistance, career counseling, labor market information, and other
employment services. Core labor exchange services (matching job seekers and employers) are
provided by the U.S. Employment Service (ES), which was first established by the Wagner-
Peyser Act of 1933 and most recently amended under Title III of WIA. In addition to ES, Title I
of WIA authorizes resources for similar core and intensive employment services for youth, adults,
dislocated workers, and targeted populations.
Title I of WIA is also the nation’s central job training legislation, providing funds for traditional,
on-the-job, customized, and other forms of training to individuals unable to obtain or retain
employment through other services.
This report will be updated with major new legislation.
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Unemployment Insurance for Unemployed Workers ...................................................................... 1
Unemployment Compensation .................................................................................................. 1
Emergency Unemployment Compensation ......................................................................... 2
Extended Benefits ............................................................................................................... 3
EUC08 and EB Interactions ................................................................................................ 4
Trade Readjustment Allowance: UI Extension for Workers Affected by Foreign
Competition ............................................................................................................................ 5
Reemployment Trade Adjustment Assistance ..................................................................... 6
Disaster Unemployment Assistance .......................................................................................... 6
Health Care Assistance for Unemployed Workers ........................................................................... 7
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-272) ............................... 7
Health Coverage Tax Credit ...................................................................................................... 8
Job Search Assistance for Unemployed Workers............................................................................. 8
Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933 ....................................................................................................... 9
Employment Services .......................................................................................................... 9
Wagner-Peyser Act Funding ................................................................................................ 9
Job Search Assistance for TAA-Certified Workers .................................................................... 9
Job Training Assistance for Unemployed Workers ........................................................................ 10
Workforce Investment Act of 1998.......................................................................................... 10
WIA State Formula Grant Programs for Job Training and Related Services .................... 10
National Training Programs for Special Populations ........................................................ 11
Other Targeted Competitive Grant Programs .................................................................... 12
Workforce Investment Act Funding .................................................................................. 13
Targeted Federal Job Training Activities: Trade Adjustment Assistance and
Community Service Employment for Older Americans....................................................... 13
Training Assistance for TAA-Certified Workers ............................................................... 14
Community Service Employment for Older Americans ................................................... 14
Tables
Table 1. Workforce Investment Act Title I FY2012 Appropriations .............................................. 13
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 15
________________________________________________________________________
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.
[IWS] CRS: TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE (TAA) AND ITS ROLE IN U.S. TRADE POLICY [9 January 2013]
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
________________________________________________________________________
Congressional Research Service (CRS)
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Its Role in U.S. Trade Policy
J. F. Hornbeck, Specialist in International Trade and Finance
January 9, 2013
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41922.pdf
[full-text, 19 pages]
Summary
Congress created Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to help
workers and firms adjust to dislocation that may be caused by increased trade liberalization. It is
justified now, as it was then, on grounds that the government has an obligation to help the
“losers” of policy-driven trade opening. In addition, TAA is presented as an alternative to policies
that would restrict imports, and so provides assistance while bolstering freer trade and
diminishing prospects for potentially costly tension (retaliation) among trade partners. As in the
past, critics strongly debate the merits of TAA on equity, efficiency, and budgetary grounds.
Nonetheless, finding agreement on TAA remains important for forging a compromise on national
trade policy. This report discusses the role of TAA in U.S. trade policy from its inception as a
legislative option in the early 1950s to its core role as a cornerstone of modern trade policy that
many argue has served to promote the long-term U.S. trade liberalization agenda.
TAA was reauthorized through December 31, 2013, in the 112th Congress. Democratic leaders
and the Obama Administration considered TAA a quid pro quo for passage of three implementing
bills for free trade agreements (FTAs) with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. There was,
however, considerable partisan debate over the direction TAA should take. Congress had
expanded TAA significantly in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009
from an earlier version in the Trade Act of 2002. The issue before the 112th Congress was how to
craft a compromise TAA bill that would receive bipartisan support in the both houses, and assure
its passage along with the three implementing bills. Such an understanding was developed and
became part of H.R. 2832, a bill to reauthorize the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). In
an elaborate legislative procedure, both chambers passed the four trade bills on October 12, 2011.
TAA reauthorization reflected a compromise that allowed for passage as part of a larger trade
deal. Because it was understood that TAA was essential to move the three FTA implementing
bills, both parties and houses of Congress eventually embraced this solution, albeit not
unanimously. The bill reauthorized the workers, firms, and farmers programs through December
31, 2013, but discontinued TAA for communities because it was considered duplicative of other
federal programs. Many, but not all, of the enhanced programs and funding levels in the ARRA
were reauthorized, including restoring eligibility to services workers and firms, increasing income
support for workers undergoing job training, raising the Health Coverage Tax Credit, expanding
funding for training benefits, and reinstituting more detailed program evaluation and reporting
requirements. Funding was reduced from ARRA levels for job search, relocation assistance, and
wage insurance for older workers. Public sector workers are no longer eligible for benefits. TAA
eligibility is retroactive to the expiration date of the ARRA enhancements. The firms and farmers
TAA programs were reauthorized at annualized levels of $16 million and $90 million,
respectively, much less than in ARRA, but comparable to current (and historical) appropriated
levels.
Although many opponents of expanding TAA programs spoke out against the reauthorizing
legislation, its ultimate passage once again suggests that TAA remains an integral part of the
debate over trade liberalization. Without providing assistance to those hurt by trade liberalization,
moving ahead with the trade policy agenda remains a difficult proposition, an outcome consistent
with TAA legislative history since 1962.
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
TAA Programs and Rationale .......................................................................................................... 1
Antecedents to TAA ......................................................................................................................... 3
The Randall Commission .......................................................................................................... 4
Early TAA Legislation ............................................................................................................... 5
Trade Expansion Act of 1962 .......................................................................................................... 6
The Failure of TAA: 1963-1974 ...................................................................................................... 7
Trade Act of 1974 ............................................................................................................................ 8
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 and the 1980s .......................................................................... 9
NAFTA and the Trade Act of 2002: TAA Expansion..................................................................... 10
TAA in the New Millennium ......................................................................................................... 11
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and TAA Revision ................................ 12
TAA Reauthorization and Trade Agreements in the 112th Congress .............................................. 12
Legislative Procedure .............................................................................................................. 13
The Compromise TAA Bill ...................................................................................................... 14
Outlook .......................................................................................................................................... 15
Appendixes
Appendix. TAA Reauthorization, 1962-2011 ................................................................................ 16
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 16
________________________________________________________________________
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.
[IWS] BEA: Gross Domestic Product, 4th quarter and annual 2012 (advance estimate) [30 January 2013]
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
________________________________________________________________________
National Income and Product Accounts
Gross Domestic Product, 4th quarter and annual 2012 (advance estimate) [30 January 2013]
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
or
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2013/pdf/gdp4q12_adv.pdf
[full-text, 16 pages]
or
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2013/xls/gdp4q12_adv.xls
[spreadsheet]
and
Highlights
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2013/pdf/gdp4q12_adv_fax.pdf
Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- decreased at an annual rate of 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012
(that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to the "advance" estimate released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP increased 3.1 percent.
The Bureau emphasized that the fourth-quarter advance estimate released today is based on
source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency (see the box on page 4
and the "Comparisons of Revisions to GDP" on page 5). The "second" estimate for the fourth quarter,
based on more complete data, will be released on February 28, 2013.
The decrease in real GDP in the fourth quarter primarily reflected negative contributions from
private inventory investment, federal government spending, and exports that were partly offset by
positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), nonresidential fixed investment,
and residential fixed investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, decreased.
The downturn in real GDP in the fourth quarter primarily reflected downturns in private
inventory investment, in federal government spending, in exports, and in state and local government
spending that were partly offset by an upturn in nonresidential fixed investment, a larger decrease in
imports, and an acceleration in PCE.
Final sales of computers added 0.15 percentage point to the fourth-quarter change in real GDP
after adding 0.11 percentage point to the third-quarter change. Motor vehicle output added 0.04
percentage point to the fourth-quarter change in real GDP after subtracting 0.25 percentage point from
the third-quarter change.
_____________
FOOTNOTE. Quarterly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted annual rates, unless otherwise
specified. Quarter-to-quarter dollar changes are differences between these published estimates. Percent
changes are calculated from unrounded data and are annualized. "Real" estimates are in chained (2005)
dollars. Price indexes are chain-type measures.
This news release is available on www.bea.gov along with the Technical Notes and Highlights
related to this release.
_____________
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.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Tweet[IWS] BLS: BUSINESS EMPLOYMENT DYNAMICS: SECOND QUARTER 2012 [29 January 2013]
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
________________________________________________________________________
BUSINESS EMPLOYMENT DYNAMICS: SECOND QUARTER 2012 [29 January 2013]
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cewbd.nr0.htm
or
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cewbd.pdf
[full-text, 17 pages]
and
Supplemental Files Table of Contents
http://www.bls.gov/web/cewbd.supp.toc.htm
From March 2012 to June 2012 gross job gains from opening and
expanding private sector establishments were 7.0 million, an increase
of 69,000 from the previous quarter, the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported today. Over this period, gross job losses from
closing and contracting private sector establishments were 6.4 million,
an increase of 301,000 from the previous quarter.
The difference between the number of gross job gains and the number
of gross job losses yielded a net employment gain of 582,000 jobs
in the private sector during the second quarter of 2012.
(See table 1.)
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.
