วันเสาร์ที่ 12 กรกฎาคม พ.ศ. 2551

Boosting Population a Vague Science


11 July 2008
By Nabi Abdullaev / Staff Writer
The fact that Russia's population is shrinking should come as a surprise to no one. According to the State Statistics Service, 12 million more Russians died than were born from 1992 to 2007, with the arrival of 5.5 million immigrants only partially compensating for the loss.

It is clear from statements by political leaders that the government is aware of the problem and the serious threat that it poses to future economic growth and security as the country's work force shrinks.

What is also clear, according to demographers and public health experts, is that the government hasn't made enough effort to get to the root of the problem or to measure whether the policies it has put in place to deal with the demographic crisis are really helping. Although some financial incentives have been created to help couples have more children, experts say a much more comprehensive approach is necessary.

Given existing trends, demographers say the population will shrink from the current level of 142 million to something between 125 million and 135 million by 2025, and could fall to as low as 100 million by 2050.

This demographic decline has serious economic consequences -- there will be as many as 8 million fewer people in the work force by 2015 and possibly 19 million less by 2025, according to study by a group of Russian demographers sponsored by the United Nations and released in late April.

Population change is dependent on three main factors: the birthrate, the death rate and immigration rates. Last October, then-President Vladimir Putin approved a government demographic strategy through 2025 that sets targets in each of these three categories. But while this strategy shows that the government is concerned about the current situation, the program's goals suggest that it has little interest in understanding the roots of the problem, preferring to throw money at it instead.

Demographers have calculated that, in Russia, the replacement fertility rate -- the number of births per woman necessary to maintain the current population -- is 2.15. In 2006, the fertility rate was 1.3 children for every woman.

The number of babies born last year jumped to about 2 million -- up 8.3 percent from the year before and a post-Soviet record. Still, the fertility rate rose only to 1.4 children per woman.

State officials wasted no time in claiming that government policy was to thank for a new baby boom, with Health and Social Development Minister Tatyana Golikova only the most recent example.

"It is a true demographic explosion that no other developed country has generated," Golikova said in a speech on April 26. "We are proud that ... Russians have had the right reaction to the measures to encourage births."

The measures introduced by the government included an increase in monthly social payments to mothers, making it easier for young families to get mortgages, and "mother's capital" -- a one-time payment of around $10,000 for those women giving birth to a second child. Access to the money comes only three years after the child is born, and it must be used for the child's benefit, such as improving the family's living conditions or paying for education.

Demographers doubt, however, that government perks were the sole or even the main cause of the rise in births.

Vladimir Arkhangelsky, of the Research Center for Population Problems at Moscow State University, said the latest spike in births is the result of an increase in the number of women reaching their peak childbearing years. These women were themselves products of an early 1980s baby boom, which followed increases in Soviet-era social payments and an anti-alcohol campaign.

Arkhangelsky and other demographers say the number of children being born will likely fall off again in about five years as the women of the 1980s baby boom move out of their most fertile years and are replaced by the much smaller generation born in the 1990s.

According to the State Statistics Service, in 2007 there were 24.1 percent fewer females from the age of 10 to 19 than in the 20 to 29 age group. There were 44.1 percent fewer females under the age of nine than in the 20 to 29 group.

An added concern is that, even if the new benefits are partially responsible for the increase in births, they may still have a negative effect on the country's wealth disparity in the future. Women living below the poverty rate experienced a more significant rise in birthrate than any other segment of the female population, said Valery Yelizarov, head of the Research Center for Population Problems.

According to the Social Insurance Fund, the government body that issues birth certificates, about half of the women who gave birth last year reported a monthly income below the poverty line for Russia -- 3,500 rubles ($150). About 70 percent of the mothers reported a monthly income of less than 7,000 rubles ($300).

"The government needs to think of how to stimulate [births among] those who are more successful in life," Yelizarov said.

According to the government demographic strategy, incentives designed to get families to have more than one child should boost the birthrate by 50 percent by 2025. But the global trend, and particularly in developed countries, has been away from larger families, leading some experts to express doubts that the target can be met.

Karl Kulessa, the UN's population agency chief in Russia, said there were many social and economic factors that work against bigger families.

Benefits for larger families introduced by the French government have played at least some part in a jump in the birthrate from 1.7 babies per woman in 1994 to almost 2.0 in 2006. But to achieve similar results in Russia, the government needs not only to provide families with the financial resources to provide for more children but also to influence attitudes in a country where one-child families are the norm, Arkhangelsky said.

วันพุธที่ 2 กรกฎาคม พ.ศ. 2551

Attention all agents: Japan Airlines international fuel surcharge increase


NOTE:
• International Insurance surcharge is USD3.20 per person for each segment. This should also be collected as YQ’.
• Insurance surcharge for Japan Domestic sectors is as follows: JPY300 - When Japan Domestic fares are purchased separately from international fares, the insurance surcharge will not be applied. When Japan Domestic sectors are included in international fares, the insurance surcharge will be applied. This should also be collected as ‘YQ’.

Applies to: All fares and tickets (including child, and JMB award tickets.) Infants without seat are exempted from fuel surcharge.

Collection Method: Fuel Surcharge and Insurance surcharge will be collected on international air tickets or MCOs. The Special fees and Charges code ‘YQ’ will be used and entered in the TAX/FEE/CHARGE/BOX. The current BSR at time of ticketing will be used to convert from USD to AUD.

Ticket Reissue/1St Intl Flight Change: When the first international sector of the ticket is changed or rerouted (regardless of fare type), difference between previous Fuel Surcharge and the revised Fuel
Surcharge will be collected. (All tickets must be reissued). If reissue is due to any other sector than the 1st international flight the fuel surcharge increase is not charged.

วันจันทร์ที่ 30 มิถุนายน พ.ศ. 2551

Unions demand National Insurance hikes for top earners in exchange for rescuing Labour from bankruptcy

TRADE union leaders are drawing up a shopping list of policy demands - including tax hikes for the middle classes - in exchange for rescuing Labour from bankruptcy.

Senior union figures are highlighting 'cuddly' measures such as more flexible working rights and free school meals for all primary school children.

But behind the scenes they are also pressing for new rights to strike - and, most explosively, National Insurance hikes for middle earners.

The GMB union is understood to want the upper earnings limit on National Insurance to be abolished, making higher earners pay far more.

National Insurance is charged at 11 per cent on an employee's income between ?5,460 a year and ?40,040 a year, and 1 per cent on anything earned above that.

Gordon Brown will fiercely resist such a move as electoral suicide. But the unions are ready to flex their muscles at a time when the Prime Minister is politically vulnerable and the Labour Party is in desperate financial straits.

Gifts from individual supporters have collapsed in the wake of the cash-for-peerages affair and Labour's catastrophic slump in the polls.

With Labour almost totally reliant on them for funding, the unions want to push for a detailed list of policies in crunch talks with ministers next month.

Labour has had its annual accounts signed off by auditors and they have now been sent to the Electoral Commission for publication.

The figures will show that the party remains about ?20million in debt.

Party sources insisted the role of the unions in keeping the party solvent had been 'massively overstated'.

Instead, a string of wealthy businessmen who loaned the party millions of pounds are understood to have agreed not to call in their money now.

One party source insisted: 'As for this so-called list of union demands, it's made abundantly clear to anybody that gives us money that they don't get anything in return except a greater possibility of a Labour government.'

The unions are proposing several measures designed to appeal to Labour's core vote.

Unite, the largest union, suggests that employees are given more rights to flexible workplace leave.

The public services union Unison wants all primary school children to get free school meals and the GMB wants to instal environmental workplace 'shop stewards' to encourage green workplaces.

The GMB - headed by general secretary Paul Kenny - has already voted to cut funding to a third of the 108 Labour MPs it sponsors, saying they have failed to back its policies.

Union leaders are said to be wary of explicitly demanding traditional workers' rights at this stage, for fear of unnerving the Government ahead of next month's talks.

But Unite, which gave ?2million earlier this year to Labour, is also said to be preparing a campaign to overturn the ban on secondary strike action, which was introduced by Margaret Thatcher.

Other possible demands include a provision enabling unions to ballot their members by phone or email.

Yesterday former Labour Party treasurer Baroness Prosser warned the party's finances were 'a worse situation than we have been in ever'.

She claimed some donors had abandoned the party because they were only prepared to support 'something that's a winner'.

Lady Prosser said Mr Brown was 'not exactly a sunbeam' but insisted there was no alternative leader who could attract more donors.