IWS Documented News DAILY POSTINGS

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

There will be no messages or postings until 5 January 2015. Have a wonderful Holiday Season and New Year!

________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Household Economic Studies P70-139

A CHILD'S DAY: LIVING ARRANGEMENTS, NATIVITY, AND FAMILY TRANSITIONS: 2011 (SELECTED INDICATORS OF CHILD WELL-BEING) [19 December 2014]

By Lynda Laughlin

http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/demo/p70-139.pdf

[full-text, 20 pages]

see also the following presentation with CHARTS

CHILDREN'S WELL-BEING

http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/newsroom/c-span/2014/201412119_cspan_children_wellbeing.pdf

[full-text, 13 pages]

This report highlights how family structure, nativity, and family instability are associated with selected measures

of child well-being. Measures of child well-being include family reading practices, shared meal times, television

rules, children’s extracurricular activities, and school performance, as well as early child care experiences (see

definition box for “SIPP Child Well-Being Data”). The report contains four sections: (1) household and family characteristics,

(2) children’s living arrangements and selected indicators of child well-being, (3) selected indicators of child

well-being for children living with foreign-born parents, and (4) household and economic transitions and selected

indicators of child well-being.

________________________________________________________________________

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 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)

Generalized System of Preferences: Background and Renewal Debate

Vivian C. Jones, Specialist in International Trade and Finance

December 16, 2014

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33663.pdf

[full-text, 37 pages]

Summary

The U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program provides non-reciprocal, duty-free

tariff treatment to certain products imported from designated beneficiary developing countries

(BDCs). The United States, the European Union, and other developed countries have

implemented similar programs since the 1970s. The U.S. program was first authorized in Title V

of the Trade Act of 1974, and is subject to periodic renewal by Congress. The GSP program was

most recently extended until July 31, 2013, in Section 1 of P.L. 112-40, and has not been

renewed. Imports under the GSP program in 2012 (last full year of GSP implementation)

amounted to about $19.9 billion—about 6% of all imports from GSP countries, and about 1% of

total U.S. imports.

The expiration of GSP means that renewal of the program may continue to be a legislative issue

in the 114th Congress. In recent years, GSP renewal has been somewhat controversial. In the 113th

Congress, controversy arose over the funding provisions in Senate bill S. 1331 seeking to renew

GSP. Other GSP legislation introduced in the 113th Congress included H.R. 2709, H.R. 2139, and

H.R. 1682.

The GSP program is one of several U.S. trade preference programs through which the United

States seeks to help developing countries expand their economies. Other U.S. trade preference

programs are regionally focused, and include the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA),

the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), and the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI). The GSP

program provides duty-free entry for over 3,500 products (based on 8-digit U.S. Harmonized

Tariff Schedule tariff lines) from 122 BDCs, and duty-free status to an additional 1,500 products

from 43 GSP beneficiaries that are additionally designated as least-developed beneficiary

developing countries (LDBDCs).

U.S. implementation of GSP requires that developing countries meet certain criteria to be eligible

for the program. For example, countries must not have seized ownership or control of the assets

of U.S. citizens or have harmed U.S. investors in other specified ways. Eligible countries must

also be taking steps to maintain internationally recognized worker rights among other things. GSP

rules of origin require that at least 35% of the appraised value of the product be the “growth,

product, or manufacture” of the BDC. Third, the GSP program includes certain curbs on product

eligibility intended to shield U.S. manufacturers and workers from potential adverse impact due

to the duty-free treatment. These include specific exclusion of certain “import sensitive” products

(e.g., textiles and apparel), and limits on the quantity or value of any one product imported from

any one country under the program (products from least-developed beneficiaries are not subject

to this restriction). Fourth, GSP country and product eligibility are subject to annual review.

This report presents, first, recent developments and a brief history, economic rationale, and legal

background leading to the establishment of the GSP. Second, the report presents a discussion of

U.S. implementation of the GSP. Third, the report presents an analysis of the U.S. program’s

effectiveness and the positions of various stakeholders. Fourth, implications of the expiration of

the U.S. program and possible options for Congress are discussed.

Contents

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

Countries Recently Suspended from or Included in GSP .......................................................... 1

113th Congress Legislation ........................................................................................................ 2

History, Rationale, and Comparison of GSP Programs ................................................................... 3

Economic and Political Basis .................................................................................................... 3

GATT/WTO Framework ........................................................................................................... 4

Enabling Clause................................................................................................................... 5

Additional Commitment to LDCs ....................................................................................... 5

Comparison of International GSP Programs ............................................................................. 6

EU GSP Changes................................................................................................................. 7

Future Canada Changes ....................................................................................................... 8

United States GSP Implementation .................................................................................................. 8

Eligible Countries ...................................................................................................................... 9

Reporting Requirements .................................................................................................... 11

Least-Developed Beneficiaries.......................................................................................... 11

Country Graduation from GSP .......................................................................................... 11

Countries Potentially Eligible for GSP ............................................................................. 12

Eligible Products ..................................................................................................................... 13

Rules of Origin .................................................................................................................. 13

Competitive Need Limits and Waivers .............................................................................. 13

De Minimis CNL Waivers ................................................................................................. 14

Waivers for Articles not Produced in the United States on January 1, 1995 ..................... 14

Annual Reviews....................................................................................................................... 15

2012 Annual Review Results ............................................................................................ 15

Pending 2013 Review........................................................................................................ 15

Effectiveness of the U.S. GSP Program ......................................................................................... 15

Effects on Developing Countries ............................................................................................. 16

Economic Effects on the U.S. Market ..................................................................................... 18

Stakeholders’ Concerns .................................................................................................................. 19

“Special and Differential Treatment” ...................................................................................... 19

Erosion of Preferential Margins .............................................................................................. 20

Under-Utilization of GSP ........................................................................................................ 21

Trade as Foreign Assistance .................................................................................................... 21

Conditionality of Preferences .................................................................................................. 22

Lower Costs of Imports ........................................................................................................... 22

Conclusion and Options for Congress ........................................................................................... 23

Suspend GSP ........................................................................................................................... 23

Negotiate Free-Trade Agreements with GSP Countries .......................................................... 23

Authorize GSP Only for Least-Developed Countries .............................................................. 24

Reform GSP............................................................................................................................. 24

Expand Application of GSP .............................................................................................. 25

Restrict Application of Preferences ................................................................................... 25

Figures

Figure 1. U.S. Imports from GSP Countries, 1996 - 2012 ............................................................. 16

Tables

Table A-1. Leading U.S. GSP Product Imports, 2012 ................................................................... 26

Table A-2. Leading GSP Beneficiaries and Total, 2012 ................................................................ 27

Table B-1. GSP Implementation and Renewal, 1974-2013 ........................................................... 29

Table C-1.Beneficiary Developing Countries and Regions for Purposes of the Generalizes System of Preferences ................ 31

Appendixes

Appendix A. Leading U.S. GSP Product Imports .......................................................................... 26

Appendix B. GSP Implementation and Renewal ........................................................................... 29

Appendix C. GSP Beneficiary Countries ....................................................................................... 31

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 33

________________________________________________________________________

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 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)

Border Security: Immigration Enforcement Between Ports of Entry

Lisa Seghetti, Section Research Manager

December 18, 2014

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42138.pdf

[full-text, 48 pages]

Summary

Border enforcement is a core element of the Department of Homeland Security’s effort to control

unauthorized migration, with the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) within the U.S. Customs and Border

Protection (CBP) as the lead agency along most of the border. Border enforcement has been an

ongoing subject of congressional interest since the 1970s, when illegal immigration to the United

States first registered as a serious national problem; and border security has received additional

attention in the years since the terrorist attacks of 2001.

Since the 1990s, migration control at the border has been guided by a strategy of “prevention

through deterrence”—the idea that the concentration of personnel, infrastructure, and surveillance

technology along heavily trafficked regions of the border will discourage unauthorized aliens

from attempting to enter the United States. Since 2005, CBP has attempted to discourage repeat

illegal migrant entries and disrupt migrant smuggling networks by imposing tougher penalties

against certain unauthorized aliens, a set of policies eventually described as “enforcement with

consequences.” Most people apprehended at the Southwest border are now subject to “high

consequence” enforcement outcomes.

Across a variety of indicators, the United States has substantially expanded border enforcement

resources over the last three decades. Particularly since 2001, such increases include border

security appropriations, personnel, fencing and infrastructure, and surveillance technology. In

addition to increased resources, the USBP has implemented several strategies over the past

several decades in an attempt to thwart illegal migration. Recently, the Obama Administration

announced executive actions to “fix” the immigration system. These actions address numerous

issues, including a security plan at the southern border.

The Border Patrol collects data on several different border enforcement outcomes; and this report

describes trends in border apprehensions, recidivism, and estimated got aways and turn backs. Yet

none of these existing data are designed to measure illegal border flows or the degree to which

the border is secured. Thus, the report also describes methods for estimating illegal border flows

based on enforcement data and migrant surveys.

Drawing on multiple data sources, the report suggests conclusions about the state of border

security. Robust investments at the border were not associated with reduced illegal inflows during

the 1980s and 1990s, but a range of evidence suggests a substantial drop in illegal inflows in

2007-2011, followed by a slight rise in 2012 and a more dramatic rise in 2013. Enforcement,

along with the economic downturn in the United States, likely contributed to the drop in

unauthorized migration, though the precise share of the decline attributable to enforcement is

unknown.

Enhanced border enforcement also may have contributed to a number of secondary costs and

benefits. To the extent that border enforcement successfully deters illegal entries, such

enforcement may reduce border-area violence and migrant deaths, protect fragile border

ecosystems, and improve the quality of life in border communities. But to the extent that aliens

are not deterred, the concentration of enforcement resources on the border may increase border

area violence and migrant deaths, encourage unauthorized migrants to find new ways to enter

illegally and to remain in the United States for longer periods of time, damage border ecosystems,

harm border-area businesses and the quality of life in border communities, and strain U.S.

relations with Mexico and Canada.

Contents

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

Border Patrol History and Strategy .................................................................................................. 2

Border Patrol Strategic Plans ..................................................................................................... 3

National Strategic Plan ........................................................................................................ 3

National Border Patrol Strategy .......................................................................................... 4

Border Patrol Strategic Plan ................................................................................................ 5

DHS Secure Border Initiative .................................................................................................... 6

CBP Consequence Delivery System .......................................................................................... 7

Southern Border Campaign Plan ............................................................................................. 12

Budget and Resources .................................................................................................................... 12

Border Security Appropriations ............................................................................................... 12

Border Patrol Personnel ........................................................................................................... 14

National Guard Troops at the Border ................................................................................ 15

Fencing and Tactical Infrastructure ......................................................................................... 16

Surveillance Assets .................................................................................................................. 18

Aerial and Marine Surveillance ......................................................................................... 19

Border Patrol Enforcement Data .................................................................................................... 20

Alien Apprehensions ............................................................................................................... 20

Southwest Border Apprehensions by Sector ..................................................................... 21

Unique Subjects and Alien Recidivism ................................................................................... 22

Estimated “Got Aways” and “Turn Backs” ............................................................................. 24

Additional Border Security Data: Migrant Surveys ....................................................................... 24

Probability of Apprehension .................................................................................................... 25

Border Deterrence ................................................................................................................... 25

Smuggling Fees ....................................................................................................................... 26

Metrics of Border Security ............................................................................................................ 27

The Residual Method for Estimating Unauthorized Residents in the United States ............... 29

CBP Metrics of Border Security .............................................................................................. 30

Operational Control of the Border .................................................................................... 30

Border Conditions Index ................................................................................................... 30

Border Patrol Effectiveness Rate ...................................................................................... 31

Estimating Illegal Flows Using Recidivism Data .................................................................... 31

How Secure is the U.S. Border? .................................................................................................... 32

Unintended and Secondary Consequences of Border Enforcement .............................................. 35

Border-Area Crime and Migrant Deaths ................................................................................. 35

Migration Flows: “Caging” Effects and Alternative Modes of Entry ..................................... 38

Environmental Impact ............................................................................................................. 39

Effects on Border Communities and Civil Rights ................................................................... 39

Effects on Regional Relations ................................................................................................. 41

Conclusion: Understanding the Costs and Benefits of Border Enforcement between Ports

of Entry ....................................................................................................................................... 41

Figures

Figure 1. CBP “Enforcement with Consequences,” FY2005-FY2012 .......................................... 10

Figure 2. U.S. Border Patrol Appropriations, FY1989-FY2014 .................................................... 13

Figure 3. U.S. Border Patrol Agents, Total and by Region, FY1980-FY2013 .............................. 15

Figure 4. Tactical Infrastructure Appropriations and Miles of Border Fencing, FY1996-FY2013 ........................................... 17

Figure 5. Total USBP Apprehensions of Deportable Aliens, FY1960-FY2012 ............................. 21

Figure 6. U.S. Border Patrol Apprehensions of Deportable Aliens, Southwest Border, by Selected Sectors, FY1992-FY2013 ....................... 22

Figure 7. USBP Southwest Border Unique Subjects and Recidivism Rates ................................. 23

Figure 8. Smuggling Fees Paid by Unauthorized Mexican Migrants, 1980-2010 ......................... 27

Figure 9. Total Estimated Illegal Border Inflows, by Assumed Rate of Deterrence ...................... 34

Figure 10. Known Migrant Deaths, Southwest Border, 1985-2012 .............................................. 37

Tables

Table 1. Consequence Delivery System Outcomes and Recidivism Rates .................................... 11

Appendixes

Appendix. Capture-Recapture Methodology ................................................................................. 43

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 44

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 44

________________________________________________________________________

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 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

POPULATION ESTIMATES [23 December 2014]

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

Press Release 23 December 2014

Florida Passes New York to Become the Nation’s Third Most Populous State, Census Bureau Reports

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2014/cb14-232.html

By adding an average of 803 new residents each day between July 1, 2013 and July 1, 2014, Florida passed New York to become the nation’s third most populous state, according to U.S. Census Bureau state population estimates released today. Florida’s population grew by 293,000 over this period, reaching 19.9 million. The population of New York increased by 51,000 to 19.7 million.

California remained the nation’s most populous state in 2014, with 38.8 million residents, followed by Texas, at 27.0 million. Although the list of the 10 most populous states overall was unchanged, two other states did change positions, as North Carolina moved past Michigan to take the ninth spot.

Another milestone took place in Georgia (ranked 8th), which saw its population surpass 10 million for the first time.

North Dakota was the nation’s fastest-growing state over the last year. Its population increased 2.2 percent, followed by the 1.7 percent growth in Nevada and Texas. Each of the 10 fastest-growing states was in the South or West with the exception of North Dakota. 

Six states lost population between July 1, 2013, and July 1, 2014: Illinois (9,972 or -0.08 percent), West Virginia (3,269 or -0.18 percent), Connecticut (2,664 or -0.07 percent), New Mexico (1,323 or -0.06 percent, Alaska (527 or -0.07 percent) and Vermont (293 or -0.05 percent).

The United States as a whole saw its population increase by 2.4 million to 318.9 million, or 0.75 percent.

In addition to the 50 states and the District of Columbia, the new statistics also include estimates for Puerto Rico. On July 1, 2014, Puerto Rico had an estimated population of 3.5 million, a decline of 47,000, or 1.3 percent, from one year earlier.

The Census Bureau produces population estimates each year, allowing the public to gauge the growth and demographic composition of the nation, states and communities. These statistics use administrative data to estimate population change between census years, using the decennial census count as a starting point. Local governments use estimates to locate services, and estimates are used by the private sector to locate businesses.

The Census Bureau also released today estimates of the number of people 18 and older in the U.S., states and Puerto Rico. The downloadable file also includes total population and the percentage of people 18 and older. Internet address: http://www.census.gov/popest/data/datasets.html.

During 2015, the Census Bureau will release estimates of the 2014 population of counties, cities and towns, and metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas as well as national, state and county population estimates by age, sex, race and Hispanic origin.

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 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

Please forward this announcement to interested parties--

Upcoming --
BLG & Inc.Edu Workshops

PRAGMATIC LEADERSHIP SKILLS FOR ACHIEVING RESULTS: Helping Entrepreneurs Grow & Manage Their Businesses
http://www.blgevents-incedu.com/

MASTER THE SKILLS OF INFLUENCE
New York City: February 24-25, 2015
Washington DC: May 12-13, 2015
Los Angeles: September 15-16, 2015

LEAD YOUR TEAMS TO DRIVE GROWTH
New York City: February 26-27, 2015
Washington DC: May 14-15, 2015
Los Angeles: September 17-18, 2015

________________________________________________________________________

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 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

PERSONAL INCOME AND OUTLAYS: NOVEMBER 2014 [23 December 2014]

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/pinewsrelease.htm

or

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/2014/pdf/pi1114.pdf

[full-text, 11 pages]

or

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/2014/xls/pi1114.xls

[spreadsheet]

and

Highlights

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/2014/pdf/pi1114_fax.pdf

Personal income increased $54.4 billion, or 0.4 percent, and disposable personal income (DPI) increased $42.4 billion,

or 0.3 percent, in November, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.  Personal consumption expenditures (PCE)

increased $67.9 billion, or 0.6 percent.  In October, personal income increased $49.8 billion, or 0.3 percent, DPI

increased $39.7 billion, or 0.3 percent, and PCE increased $31.3 billion, or 0.3 percent, based on revised estimates.

Real DPI increased 0.5 percent in November, compared with an increase of 0.3 percent in October.  Real PCE increased

0.7 percent, compared with an increase of 0.2 percent.   The price index for PCE decreased 0.2 percent, in contrast

to an increase of less than 0.1 percent.

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 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

National Income and Product Accounts

Gross Domestic Product: Third Quarter 2014 (Third Estimate)

Corporate Profits: Third Quarter 2014 (Revised Estimate) [23 December 2014]

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

or

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2014/pdf/gdp3q14_3rd.pdf

[full-text, 19 pages]

or

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2014/xls/gdp3q14_3rd.xls

[spreadsheet]

and

Highlights

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2014/pdf/gdp3q14_3rd_fax.pdf

Real gross domestic product -- the value of the production of goods and services in the United

States, adjusted for price changes -- increased at an annual rate of 5.0 percent in the third quarter of

2014, according to the "third" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.  In the second

quarter, real GDP increased 4.6 percent.

      The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for

the "second" estimate issued last month.  In the second estimate, the increase in real GDP was 3.9

percent.  With the third estimate for the third quarter, both personal consumption expenditures (PCE)

and nonresidential fixed investment increased more than previously estimated (see "Revisions" on page

3).

      The increase in real GDP in the third quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from

PCE, nonresidential fixed investment, federal government spending, exports, state and local government

spending, and residential fixed investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP,

decreased.

      The acceleration in the percent change in real GDP reflected a downturn in imports, an upturn in

federal government spending, and an acceleration in PCE that were partly offset by a downturn in

private inventory investment and decelerations in exports, in state and local government spending, in

residential fixed investment, and in nonresidential fixed investment.

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 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)

Radio Broadcasting Chips for Smartphones: A Status Report

Linda K. Moore, Specialist in Telecommunications Policy

December 15, 2014

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43828.pdf

[full-text, 9 pages]

Summary

The concurrent developments of digital radio broadcasting and digital cellular networks have

enabled hybrid products that incorporate over-the-air broadcasting into cellphones. A recent

introduction (2013) is a hybrid radio/smartphone with Internet connectivity, marketed in the

United States as NextRadio. NextRadio uses a chip that receives analog FM and digital radio,

with enhancements such as customized radio listening; the primary radio connection is over-theair,

not through Internet streaming.

On the assumption that radio broadcasting is more accessible and reliable than communications

over wireless networks with Internet connectivity, some broadcasting industry leaders have

proposed that FM radio chips be required—or at least encouraged—for smartphones as part of the

nation’s emergency communications preparedness.

To give perspective on the proposal for widespread deployment of FM radio chips in smartphones

as an emergency preparedness measure, this report provides information on consumer and

industry trends in radio and wireless network communications. It also provides a brief overview

of the role of technology in disseminating emergency alerts and information.

Contents

Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Radio Chips in Smartphones: A New Initiative ............................................................................... 2

Business Case: Radio Industry .................................................................................................. 2

Business Case: Wireless Service Providers ............................................................................... 3

Emergency Alerts and Warnings ...................................................................................................... 4

Wireless Network Reliability ........................................................................................................... 5

Contacts

Author Contact Information............................................................................................................. 6

________________________________________________________________________

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 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

INCOME DISTRIBUTION STATISTICS [23 December 2014]

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Income_distribution_statistics

Data from March 2014, most recent data: Further Eurostat information, Main tables and Database. Planned article update: April 2015.

This article analyses recent statistics on monetary poverty and income inequalities in the European Union (EU). Comparisons of standards of living between countries are frequently based on gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, which presents in monetary terms how rich one country is compared with another. However, this headline indicator says very little about the distribution of income within a country and also fails to provide information in relation to non-monetary factors that may play a significant role in determining the quality of life of a particular population. On the one hand, inequalities in income distribution may create incentives for people to improve their situation through work, innovation or acquiring new skills. On the other hand, such income inequalities are often viewed as being linked to crime, poverty and social exclusion.

________________________________________________________________________

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 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. Immigration Policy: Chart Book of Key Trends

William A. Kandel, Analyst in Immigration Policy

December 17, 2014

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42988.pdf

[full-text, 31 pages]

Summary

This report is a chart book of selected immigration trends that touch on the main elements of

comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). Most policymakers agree that the main issues in CIR

include increased border security and immigration enforcement, improved employment eligibility

verification, revision of legal immigration, and options to address the millions of unauthorized

aliens residing in the country. The report offers snapshots of time series data, using the most

complete and consistent time series currently available for each statistic. The key findings and

elements germane to the data depicted are summarized with the figures. The summary offers the

highlights of key immigration trends.

The United States has a history of receiving immigrants, and these foreign-born residents of the

United States have come from all over the world.

• Immigration to the United States today has reached annual levels comparable to

the early years of the 20th century.

• Immigration over the last few decades of the 20th century was not as dominated

by three or four countries as it was earlier in the century, and this pattern has

continued into the 21st century.

• The number of foreign-born residents in the United States is at its highest level in

U.S. history, reaching 41.3 million in 2013.

• Foreign-born residents of the United States made up 13.1% of the U.S.

population in 2013, approaching levels not seen since the proportion of foreignborn

residents reached 14.8% in 1910.

Legal immigration encompasses permanent immigrant admissions (e.g., employment-based or

family-based immigrants) and temporary nonimmigrant admissions (e.g., guest workers, foreign

students). The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) contains the provisions detailing the

requirements for admission (permanent and temporary) of foreign nationals and the eligibility

rules for foreign nationals to become U.S. citizens.

• In FY2013, 991,000 aliens became U.S. legal permanent residents (LPRs). Of

this total, 65% entered on the basis of family ties.

• The pool of people potentially eligible to immigrate to the United States as LPRs

each year typically exceeds the worldwide level set by the INA.

• Most of the 4.4 million approved petitions pending at the close of FY2014 were

for family members of U.S. citizens.

• After falling from 7.6 million in FY2001 to 5.0 million in FY2004, temporary

visa issuances reached 9.2 million in FY2013.

• Generally, all of the temporary employment-based visa categories have increased

since FY1994. Although there was a dip during the recent recession, the number

of employment-based temporary visas increased each year between FY2010 and

FY2013.

Immigration control encompasses an array of enforcement tools, policies, and practices to secure grounds for exclusion and removal of foreign nationals as well as the documentary and entry-exit

controls for U.S. citizens and foreign nationals. the border and to prevent and investigate violations of immigration laws. The INA specifies the

grounds for exclusion and removal of foreign nationals as well as the documentary and entry-exit

controls for U.S. citizens and foreign nationals.

• U.S. State Department denials of petitions for LPR visas have increased in recent

years, and prior removals from the United States or past illegal presence in the

United States has become the leading ground of inadmissibility.

• U.S. Border Patrol apprehensions of foreign nationals between ports of entry fell

to a 40-year low of 327,577 in FY2011 before increasing to 420,789 by FY2013.

• The number of employers enrolled in the E-Verify employment eligibility

verification system grew from 5,900 at the close of FY2005 to 483,000 by the

end of FY2013. These data indicate that approximately 8% of U.S. employers

were participating in E-Verify by the close of FY2013.

• A total of $15.8 million in administrative fines was imposed on employers who

engaged in unlawful employment in FY2013—a figure that exceeds the level of

total fines imposed over the entire period from FY1999 through FY2009.

• Formal removals grew from 30,039 in 1990 to 438,421 in FY2013.

• Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) identifies many more potentially

removable aliens than it arrests (i.e., places in removal proceedings).

• The number of criminal aliens removed from the United States increased from

73,298 in FY2001 to 198,394 in FY2013.

The three main components of the unauthorized resident alien population are (1) aliens who enter

the country surreptitiously without inspection, (2) aliens who overstay their nonimmigrant visas,

and (3) aliens who are admitted on the basis of fraudulent documents.

• Estimates based on the March Supplement of the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current

Population Survey (CPS) indicate that the unauthorized resident alien population

rose from 8.5 million in 2000 to 12.2 million in 2007, before leveling off at 11.3

million in 2013.

• The latest available estimates indicate that 42% of the 11.4 million unauthorized

resident aliens in 2012 had entered from 2000 to 2010.

• Apprehensions of unaccompanied alien children, mainly at the Mexico-U.S.

border, increased from 8,041 in FY2008 to 68,445 in FY2014. Most of this recent

increase has come from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.

For those who seek more complete analyses of the issues, this report cites Congressional

Research Service (CRS) products that discuss the policies underlying the data presented in each

of the figures.

Contents

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

Historical Immigration Trends ......................................................................................................... 2

Legal Permanent Immigration ......................................................................................................... 5

Legal Temporary Migration ............................................................................................................. 9

Inadmissibility ............................................................................................................................... 13

Border Security .............................................................................................................................. 16

Employment Eligibility Verification .............................................................................................. 17

Worksite Enforcement ................................................................................................................... 18

Alien Removals ............................................................................................................................. 20

Criminal Aliens .............................................................................................................................. 21

Unauthorized Resident Aliens ....................................................................................................... 23

Unaccompanied Alien Children ..................................................................................................... 25

Figures

Figure 1. Annual LPR Admissions and Status Adjustments ............................................................ 2

Figure 2. Top Sending Countries Comprising at Least Half of All LPRs ........................................ 3

Figure 3. Foreign-Born Residents by Region of Origin .................................................................. 4

Figure 4. Legal Permanent Residents Admitted/Adjusted by Category .......................................... 5

Figure 5. Legal Permanent Residents Admitted/Adjusted by Category .......................................... 6

Figure 6. Approved LPR Visa Petitions Pending by Year of Submission and by Preference Category...................... 7

Figure 7. Approved LPR Visa Petitions Pending by Preference Category ...................................... 8

Figure 8. Nonimmigrant Visas Issued by U.S. Department of State ................................................ 9

Figure 9. Temporary Employment-Based Visas Issued ................................................................. 10

Figure 10. Nonimmigrant Admissions at U.S. Ports of Entry ....................................................... 11

Figure 11. Nonimmigrant Admissions by Class of Admission ...................................................... 12

Figure 12. Aliens Denied Visas Under §212(a) Inadmissibility .................................................... 13

Figure 13. LPR Inadmissibility by Legal Grounds ........................................................................ 14

Figure 14. Inadmissible Aliens at Ports of Entry ........................................................................... 15

Figure 15. U.S. Border Patrol Apprehensions................................................................................ 16

Figure 16. Number of Employers Enrolled in E-Verify and Cases Submitted .............................. 17

Figure 17. Administrative (Civil) Charges and Fines under INA §274A ...................................... 18

Figure 18. Criminal Charges and Fines under INA §274A ............................................................ 19

Figure 19. Alien Formal Removals and Voluntary Returns ........................................................... 20

Figure 20. Interior Immigration Enforcement Targeting Criminal Aliens ..................................... 21

Figure 21. Criminal and Non-criminal Aliens Removed from the United States .......................... 22

Figure 22. Estimated Number of Unauthorized Resident Aliens ................................................... 23

Figure 23. Unaccompanied Alien Children Apprehensions by Country of Origin ........................ 25

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 26

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ 26

Key Policy Staff ............................................................................................................................. 26

________________________________________________________________________

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.