Thursday, December 24, 2009
[IWS] DAILY POSTING - NO MESSAGES until 4 January 2010
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
________________________________________________________________________
NO MESSAGES will be sent until 4 January 2010.
________________________________________________________________________
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.
****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************
[IWS] Watson Wyatt: DEFINED BENEFIT vs 401(K) INVESTMENT RETURNS: THE 2006-2008 UPDATE [December 2009]
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
________________________________________________________________________
Watson wyatt
INSIDER
Defined Benefit vs. 401(k) Investment Returns: The 2006-2008 Update [December 2009]
http://www.watsonwyatt.com/us/pubs/insider/showarticle.asp?ArticleID=22909
Watson Wyatt has been comparing investment rates of return in defined benefit (DB) and defined contribution (DC) plans for more than 10 years,1 and DB plans have been the long-term victor. This analysis updates our prior studies with investment returns for 20062 and 2007 for a large set of plans, as well as a snapshot of year-end returns for 2008 based on a small set of plan sponsors.
In our last analysis, we found that between 1995 and 2006, DB plans outperformed DC plans by an average of 1 percentage point per year. Earlier studies also found that, over time, DB plans attained higher returns than 401(k) plans. In this year’s analysis, the results remain in line with past analyses; DB plans outperform DC plans by roughly an average of 1 percentage point a year.
Our current analysis of year-end 2008 also shows — albeit drawn from a reduced sample — that despite generally poor returns for both plan types during the financial crisis, median returns for DB plans remained around 1 percentage point higher than those for DC plans — and some DB plans even reported positive returns.
Like our earlier studies, this analysis is based on Form 5500 financial and pension disclosure data through 2007 released by the Department of Labor (DOL). Results for 2008 are based on a Watson Wyatt survey of plan sponsors about their Form 5500 information. We also use the same formula as earlier studies to calculate the average rate of return:
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.
****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
[IWS] CRS: U.S. AEROSPACE MANUFACTURING: INDUSTRY OVERVIEW & PROSPECTS [3 December 2009]
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)
U.S. Aerospace Manufacturing: Industry Overview and Prospects
Michaela D. Platzer, Specialist in Industrial Organization and Business
December 3, 2009
http://opencrs.com/document/R40967/2009-12-03/download/1013/
[full-text, 13 pages]
Summary
Aircraft and automobile manufacturing are considered by many to be the technological backbones
of the U.S. manufacturing base. As the Obama Administration and Congress debate how to
strengthen American manufacturing, aerospace is likely to receive considerable attention. Like
other manufacturing industries, the worldwide recession has affected aerospace manufacturing,
with both the defense and commercial sides of the industry facing difficult business conditions for
the near and medium term. This report primarily provides a snapshot of the U.S. commercial
(non-defense, non-space) aerospace manufacturing industry and a discussion of major trends
affecting the future of this industry.
The large commercial jet aviation market is a duopoly shared by the U.S. aircraft manufacturer
Boeing and the European aircraft maker Airbus, with fierce competition between these two
companies. The regional jet market is dominated by two non-U.S. headquartered manufacturers,
Brazil’s Embraer and Canada’s Bombardier, both of which utilize a high level of U.S.-produced
content in their products. The general aviation market includes companies such as Cessna and
Gulfstream.
Aerospace manufacturing is an important part of the U.S. manufacturing base. It comprised 2.8%
of the nation’s manufacturing workforce in 2008 and employed over 500,000 Americans in highskilled
and high-wage jobs. More than half (61%) of the nation’s aerospace industry jobs are
located in six states: Washington state, California, Texas, Kansas, Connecticut, and Arizona.
Several smaller aerospace manufacturing clusters are found in states such as Florida, Georgia,
Ohio, Missouri, and Alabama. Other aerospace centers are beginning to emerge in southern states,
such as South Carolina, where Boeing is now building a second production line to produce the
787 Dreamliner. Aerospace manufacturing contributes significantly to the U.S. economy, with
total sales by aerospace manufacturers (including defense and space) comprising 1.4% of the U.S.
gross domestic product in 2008.
U.S. aircraft manufacturers depend heavily on the international market for their sales. The
aerospace industry sold more than $95 billion in aerospace vehicles and equipment (including
defense and space) to overseas customers in markets such as Japan, France, Germany, and the
United Kingdom, and imported over $37 billion in aerospace products from abroad, providing a
significant positive contribution of $57.7 billion to the U.S. trade balance in 2008. Increasingly,
other markets are becoming important as an opportunity to increase U.S. sales, but also because
of the potential for future competitors to challenge the U.S. aerospace industry’s competitive
position. U.S. aerospace exports to China have increased since 2003, totaling $5.5 billion in 2008.
At the same time, some analysts maintain that China could become a global competitor in the
commercial aerospace market. Already, China is working to develop airplanes that could become
globally competitive in both the regional jet and large commercial jet aviation market. Russia has
stated that it wants to become the world’s third-largest aircraft manufacturer by 2015.
Congress has been discussing issues affecting the competitiveness of the U.S. aerospace
manufacturing industry for most of this decade. Among the concerns and issues affecting the
future of the commercial sector of the industry are export control policies, environmental
concerns, and an aging aerospace workforce. Additionally, the United States and the European
Union are engaged in a long-running trade dispute over subsidies, with each side claiming the
other subsidizes its domestic companies.
Contents
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................1
Aerospace Manufacturing Industry Overview..............................................................................1
Aerospace Manufacturing Workforce ....................................................................................1
Economic Impact of Aerospace Manufacturing .....................................................................2
Aerospace Trade ...................................................................................................................3
The Commercial Jet Aircraft Market .....................................................................................4
The Regional Jet Market .......................................................................................................6
The General Aviation (GA) Aircraft Market ..........................................................................7
Potential Future Competition in the Aircraft Manufacturing Sector ..............................................8
Public Policy Issues ....................................................................................................................8
Export Controls.....................................................................................................................9
Environmental Concerns .......................................................................................................9
Aerospace Workforce Issues..................................................................................................9
Tables
Table 1. Boeing and Airbus Net Orders and Deliveries, 2000-2009..............................................5
Contacts
Author Contact Information ......................................................................................................10
________________________________________________________________________
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.
****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************
[IWS] CRS: CHINA-U.S. RELATIONS: CURRENT ISSUES & IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. POLICY [20 November 2009]
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)
China-U.S. Relations: Current Issues and Implications for U.S. Policy
Kerry Dumbaugh, Specialist in Asian Affairs
November 20, 2009
http://opencrs.com/document/R40457/2009-11-20/download/1013/
[full-text, 39 pages]
Summary
The bilateral relationship between the U.S. and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is vitally
important, touching on a wide range of areas including, among others, economic policy, security,
foreign relations, and human rights. U.S. interests with China are bound together much more
closely now than even a few years ago. These extensive inter-linkages have made it increasingly
difficult for either government to take unilateral actions without inviting far-reaching, unintended
consequences. The Administration of President Barack Obama has inherited from the George W.
Bush Administration not only a greater array of policy mechanisms for pursuing U.S.-China
policy, but a more complex and multifaceted U.S.-China relationship where the stakes are higher
and where U.S. action may increasingly be constrained.
Economically, the United States and China have become symbiotically intertwined. China is the
second-largest U.S. trading partner, with total U.S.-China trade in 2008 reaching an estimated
$409 billion. It also is the second largest holder of U.S. securities and the largest holder of U.S.
Treasuries used to finance the federal budget deficit, positioning China to play a crucial role, for
good or ill, in the Obama Administration’s plans to address the recession and the deteriorating
U.S. financial system. At the same time, China’s own substantial levels of economic growth have
depended heavily on continued U.S. investment and trade, making China’s economy highly
vulnerable to a significant economic slowdown in the United States.
Meanwhile, other bilateral problems provide a continuing set of diverse challenges. They include
difficulties over the status and well-being of Taiwan, ongoing disputes over China’s failure to
protect U.S. intellectual property rights, the economic advantage China gains from not floating its
currency, and growing concerns about the quality and safety of products exported by China.
China’s more assertive foreign policy and continued military development also have significant
long-term implications for U.S. global power and influence. Some U.S. lawmakers have
suggested that U.S. policies toward China should be reassessed in light of these trends.
During the Bush Administration, the U.S. and China cultivated regular high-level visits and
exchanges of working level officials, resumed military-to-military relations, cooperated on antiterror
initiatives, and worked closely on the Six Party Talks to restrain and eliminate North
Korea’s nuclear weapons activities. These and other initiatives of engagement are likely to
continue in some fashion during the Obama presidency. Obama Administration officials already
have made known their views about China’s importance for U.S. interests. Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton included China in her first official trip abroad as Secretary in February 2009,
which included stops in Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, and China (February 20-22). In addition,
the Administration established a new Strategic and Economic Dialogue with the PRC in 2009,
and President Obama in November 2009 made his first official visit to China.
This report addresses relevant policy questions in current U.S.-China relations, discusses trends
and key legislation in the current Congress, and provides a chronology of developments and highlevel
exchanges. It will be updated as events warrant. Additional details on the issues discussed
here are available in other CRS products, noted throughout this report. For background
information and legislative action during the 110th Congress, see CRS Report RL33877, China-
U.S. Relations in the 110th Congress: Issues and Implications for U.S. Policy, by Kerry
Dumbaugh. CRS products can be found on the CRS website at http://www.crs.gov/.
Contents
Recent Developments..................................................................................................................1
Background and Overview..........................................................................................................1
China’s Importance and Implications for U.S. Policy.............................................................2
Current Issues in U.S.-China Relations........................................................................................3
President Obama State Visit to China, 2009.....................................................................3
Chinese Tire Imports.............................................................................................................4
Global Financial Crisis..........................................................................................................4
Uighur Protests in Xinjiang: July 2009 ..................................................................................5
Military and National Security Issues ....................................................................................6
South China Sea Incidents...............................................................................................7
China’s Growing Military Power.....................................................................................7
PRC Space Activities ......................................................................................................8
Economic and Trade Issues ...................................................................................................9
Currency Valuation .........................................................................................................9
Unfair Trade Subsidies ..................................................................................................10
Intellectual Property Rights ...........................................................................................10
Concerns about Product Safety............................................................................................ 11
Tibet ..................................................................................................................................12
U.S.-PRC Official Dialogues...............................................................................................13
The Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) .............................................................13
Taiwan...............................................................................................................................15
Prospects for U.S. Taiwan Policy...................................................................................16
U.S. Arms Sales to Taiwan ............................................................................................16
Taiwan’s Bid for U.N. Observer Status..........................................................................17
Resumption of PRC-Taiwan Talks.................................................................................18
China’s Foreign Relations ...................................................................................................20
Environmental Issues ..........................................................................................................22
Domestic Political Issues.....................................................................................................23
Social Stability..............................................................................................................23
Human Rights ...............................................................................................................24
China-Related Legislation in the 111th Congress ........................................................................26
Chronology of Events ...............................................................................................................29
Appendixes
Appendix A. Selected Visits by U.S. and PRC Officials.............................................................32
Appendix B. Selected U.S. Government Reporting Requirements..............................................34
Contacts
Author Contact Information ......................................................................................................36
________________________________________________________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.
****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************
[IWS] CRS: TRADE AGREEMENTS: IMPACT ON THE U.S. ECONOMY [10 November 2009]
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 Agreements: Impact on the U.S. Economy
James K. Jackson, Specialist in International Trade and Finance
November 10, 2009
http://opencrs.com/document/RL31932/2009-11-10/download/1013/
[full-text, 24 pages]
Summary
The United States is in the process of considering a number of trade agreements. In addition, the
111th Congress may address the issue of trade promotion authority (TPA), which expired on July
1, 2007. These agreements range from bilateral trade agreements with countries that account for
meager shares of U.S. trade to multilateral negotiations that could affect large numbers of U.S.
workers and businesses. During this process, Congress likely will be presented with an array of
data estimating the impact of trade agreements on the economy, or on a particular segment of the
economy.
An important policy tool that can assist Congress in assessing the value and the impact of trade
agreements is represented by sophisticated models of the economy that are capable of simulating
changes in economic conditions. These models are particularly helpful in estimating the effects of
trade liberalization in such sectors as agriculture and manufacturing where the barriers to trade
are identifiable and subject to some quantifiable estimation. Barriers to trade in services,
however, are proving to be more difficult to identify and, therefore, to quantify in an economic
model. In addition, the models are highly sensitive to the assumptions that are used to establish
the parameters of the model and they are hampered by a serious lack of comprehensive data in the
services sector. Nevertheless, the models do provide insight into the magnitude of the economic
effects that may occur across economic sectors as a result of trade liberalization. These insights
are especially helpful in identifying sectors expected to experience the greatest adjustment costs
and, therefore, where opposition to trade agreements is likely to occur.
This report examines the major features of economic models being used to estimate the effects of
trade agreements. It assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the models as an aid in helping
Congress evaluate the economic impact of trade agreements on the U.S. economy. In addition,
this report identifies and assesses some of the assumptions used in the economic models and how
these assumptions affect the data generated by the models. Finally, this report evaluates the
implications for Congress of various options it may consider as it assesses trade agreements.
Contents
Background ..........................................................................................................................1
An Overview of the Major Agreements .................................................................................1
Multilateral Agreements ..................................................................................................1
Regional Trade Agreements ............................................................................................3
Completed Bilateral Trade Agreements ...........................................................................5
Signed Bilateral Trade Agreements Requiring Congressional Approval ...........................7
Pending Bilateral Trade Agreements................................................................................8
Trade Liberalization and the Gains From Trade .....................................................................9
Production Gains.............................................................................................................9
Adjustment Costs..........................................................................................................10
Consumption Gains....................................................................................................... 11
Economic Growth ......................................................................................................... 11
Estimating the Economic Impact of Trade Agreements ........................................................12
Overview......................................................................................................................12
The Michigan Model and Estimates ..............................................................................13
Investment and Capital Flows .......................................................................................16
Data on Barriers to Trade in Services ............................................................................18
Implications for Congress ...................................................................................................20
Tables
Table 1. Major Components of U.S. Gross Domestic Product ....................................................10
Table 2. Estimated Economic Effects on the United States of a 33% Reduction in Barriers to Trade in Agriculture, Manufactures, and Services at the Doha Development Round......14
Table 3. Estimated Economic Effects on the United States of Free Trade Agreements with Various Trading Partners................15
Table 4. Projected Sectoral Employment Effects (Job Gains and Losses) in the United States of Various Multilateral Trade Agreements.......16
Table 5. Projected Sectoral Employment Effects (Job Gains and Losses) in the United States of Various Regional and Bilateral Trade Agreements........17
Contacts
Author Contact Information ......................................................................................................21
________________________________________________________________________
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.
****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************
[IWS] ADB: [INDIA] SURVEYS OF INFORMAL SECTOR ENTERPRISES --SOME MEASUREMENT ISSUES [December 2009]
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)
ADB Economics
Working Paper Series
No. 183 | December 2009
[INDIA] Surveys of Informal Sector Enterprises— Some Measurement Issues
by Kaushal Joshi, Rana Hasan, and Glenita Amoranto
http://www.adb.org/Documents/Working-Papers/2009/Economics-WP183.pdf
[full-text, 37 pages]
Abstract
The informal sector represents an important part of the economy and the labor
market in many countries, especially developing countries. Measurements of the
informal sector are of intrinsic interest in their own right and contribute toward
exhaustive measures of gross domestic product (GDP). Considering that the
informal sector provides employment for income creation to a large number of
poor and contributes significantly to the GDP of many developing countries,
collecting statistics through surveys for accurate measurement of output, net
surplus, and value added is critical for national accountants, other users, and
for researchers working on policy-related issues. As most of the informal sector
enterprises do not maintain business accounts, the survey responses depend
highly on the recall by the respondent and the skills of the interviewer. Thus a
very important aspect of the surveys of informal sector enterprises is the design
of the survey questionnaire and the details to be captured in data collection
in order to accurately measure the characteristics of these enterprises. The
details sought in the survey questionnaire have implications on the accuracy
of data and hence in the measurement of expenditure, receipts, profits, and
gross value added (GVA) of these enterprises. In this paper we examine the
differences in the measures of (i) profits of an enterprise derived from a detailed
set of questions on incomes and expenses, versus profits obtained through a
single direct question; and (ii) GVA obtained using the production approach as
the difference of output and intermediate consumption from a detailed set of
questions on incomes and expenses, versus GVA using the income approach by
asking a few questions on factor incomes, and a single direct question on profits.
We use data from the 56th round survey of unorganized manufacturing conducted
by the National Sample Survey Organization of India during the period July
2000–June 2001. We also examine if the differences vary with the characteristics
of the enterprises, and suggest further empirical research to develop suitable
tools for providing accurate measurements of informal sector enterprises.
Contents
Abstract v
I. Introduction 1
II. Measurement of Informal Sector 2
III. NSS Surveys on Unorganized Manufacturing 4
IV. Data Description 5
V. NSS 56th Round Questionnaire 6
VI. Results of Data Review 9
A. Books of Accounts 11
B. Response Code 13
C. Informant 13
D. Enterprise Type 14
E. Size of Employment 15
F. Size of Plant and Machinery 15
G. Registration 16
H. Location of Enterprise 17
I. States 17
VII. Profits(derived) and Profits(direct): Profile of Enterprises 18
VIII. What do We Conclude from Above? 19
IX. Suggestions for Further Methodological Work 21
Appendix 23
References 29
________________________________________________________________________
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.
****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************
[IWS] Census: ESTIMATES OF TOTAL U.S., STATE, & PUERTO RICO POPULATION for July 1, 2009 [23 December 2009]
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
ESTIMATES OF TOTAL U.S., STATE, & PUERTO RICO POPULATION for July 1, 2009 [23 December 2009]
Detailed Tables
http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.html
State Contacts
Press Release 23 December 2009
Census Bureau: Texas Gains the Most in Population
Last State Population Estimates Before 2010 Census Counts
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/014509.html
Texas gained more people than any other state between July 1, 2008, and July 1, 2009 (478,000), followed by California (381,000), North Carolina (134,000), Georgia (131,000) and Florida (114,000), according to the latest U.S. Census Bureau estimates
California remained the most populous state, with a July 1, 2009, population of 37 million. Rounding out the top five states were Texas (24.8 million), New York (19.5 million), Florida (18.5 million) and Illinois (12.9 million).
"This is the final set of Census Bureau state population estimates that will be published before the official 2010 Census population counts to be released next December," said Census Bureau Director Robert Groves. "We are focused now on ensuring we get a complete and accurate count in 2010. The census counts will not only determine how many U.S. House seats each state will have but will also be used as the benchmark for future population estimates."
Wyoming showed the largest percentage growth: its population climbed 2.12 percent to 544,270 between July 1, 2008, and July 1, 2009. Utah was next largest, growing 2.10 percent to 2.8 million. Texas ranked third, as its population climbed 1.97 percent to 24.8 million, with Colorado next (1.81 percent to 5 million).
The only three states to lose population over the period were Michigan (-0.33 percent), Maine (-0.11 percent) and Rhode Island (-0.03 percent). The latter two states had small population changes.
Other highlights:
* Net domestic migration has slowed dramatically in many states in the South and West, including Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, North Carolina, South Carolina and Montana.
* Several states have negative net domestic migration, which means more people are moving out than moving in. Florida and Nevada, which earlier in the decade had net inflows, are now experiencing new outflows.
* Louisiana’s July 1, 2009 population, 4.5 million, is up 40,563, or 0.91 percent, from a year earlier.
* The nation’s population as of July 1, 2009, was 307 million, an increase of 0.86 percent since July 1, 2008.
* The estimated July 1, 2009, population for Puerto Rico was 4 million, up by 0.32 percent (12,735) from one year earlier.
-X-
The Census Bureau develops state population estimates by measuring population change since the most recent census. It uses births, deaths, administrative records and survey data to develop estimates of population. For more detail regarding the methodology see <http://www.census.gov/popest/topics/methodology/>.
________________________________________________________________________
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.
****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************
[IWS] BLS: UPCOMING CHANGES to EMPLOYMENT SITUATION starting w/ JANUARY 2010 Release [9 December 2009]
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
________________________________________________________________________
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
Upcoming Changes to the Employment Situation News Release on February 5, 2010 [9 December 2009]
http://www.bls.gov/bls/upcoming_empsit_changes.htm
Overview
Beginning with the release of data for January 2010 on February 5, 2010, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) plans to implement several changes to the content and format of the Employment Situation news release. Changes will be reflected in both the text and tables.
Summary tables
Both the household survey and the establishment survey will now provide separate summary tables, which contain the most commonly used data series from each section of the release. These two summary tables will immediately follow the text analysis describing the monthly data. They replace Table A in the current version of the news release.
Household survey data from the Current Population Survey (CPS)
Three new tables will be added to the household survey section ("A tables") of the release. These new tables cover the employment status of veterans, persons with a disability, and the foreign born. (Data on these persons have been collected in the CPS previously, but now are being added to this news release.) In addition, two new seasonally adjusted series are being added to the table showing unemployment by reason; specifically, the series for permanent job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs.
Establishment survey data from the Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey
New data on all employee hours and earnings will be added to the Employment Situation news release starting with this release. The text and tables ("B tables") will reflect these additions. BLS also will publish CES data on employment of women and production and nonsupervisory workers in the Employment Situation release each month concurrent with the newest-available establishment survey employment data; previously, employment data on women were available with a one-month lag and were not published in the Employment Situation news release.
The establishment survey tables in the news release will be redesigned to incorporate the addition of the all employee hours and earnings and employment series for women and for production and nonsupervisory workers. The redesigned tables will display seasonally adjusted data, while the CES public database will contain both seasonally adjusted and not seasonally adjusted data. Some diffusion indexes and industry level detail for manufacturing production worker hours, earnings, and indexes of aggregate weekly hours will be removed from the CES tables in the news release, but will be available through the CES public database.
Employment Situation Technical Notes and Access to Historical Data
The technical notes at the back of the news release will be updated to cover the new concepts introduced. The historical links section of the HTML version of the news release on the BLS Web site will be modified, again providing easy access to historical data for every series presented in the release. These changes will be effective when the data are released in February 2010.
In order to help users prepare for the changes, sample versions of the new Employment Situation News Release Tables in pdf format are posted below. In January, sample html versions of each table will also be available.
Employment Situation News Release Table Samples
* Summary tables: link to Household and Establishment summary tables (PDF)
o NEW Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted (PDF)
o NEW Summary table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted (PDF)
* Household tables: link to all Household tables (PDF)
o Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age (PDF)
o Table A-2. Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age (PDF)
o Table A-3. Employment status of the Hispanic or Latino population by sex and age (PDF)
o Table A-4. Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment (PDF)
o NEW Table A-5. Employment status of the civilian population 18 years and over by veteran status, period of service, and sex, not seasonally adjusted (PDF)
o NEW Table A-6. Employment status of the civilian population by sex, age, and disability status, not seasonally adjusted (PDF)
o NEW Table A-7. Employment status of the civilian population by nativity and sex, not seasonally adjusted (PDF)
o Table A-8. Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status (PDF)
o Table A-9. Selected employment indicators (PDF)
o Table A-10. Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted (PDF)
o Table A-11. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment (PDF)
o Table A-12. Unemployed persons by duration of unemployment (PDF)
o Table A-13. Employed and unemployed persons by occupation, not seasonally adjusted (PDF)
o Table A-14. Unemployed persons by industry and class of worker, not seasonally adjusted (PDF)
o Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization (PDF)
o Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted (PDF)
* Establishment tables: link to all Establishment tables (PDF)
o NEW Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail (PDF)
o NEW Table B-2. Average weekly hours and overtime of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted (PDF)
o NEW Table B-3. Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted (PDF)
o NEW Table B-4. Indexes of aggregate weekly hours and payrolls for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted (PDF)
o NEW Table B-5. Employment of women on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted (PDF)
o NEW Table B-6. Employment of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted (PDF)
o NEW Table B-7. Average weekly hours and overtime of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted (PDF)
o NEW Table B-8. Average hourly and weekly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted (PDF)
o NEW Table B-9. Indexes of aggregate weekly hours and payrolls for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted (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.
****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************
