1,961 research outputs found
A Tripartite Post-Recession Rebalancing
No full textIn this latest Advance & Rutgers Report, entitled “A Tripartite Post-Recession Rebalancing,” Dean James W. Hughes and Professor Joseph J. Seneca deliver an incisive assessment of the current market conditions and obstacles in the path of our economic recovery. They offer a statistical cautionary tale that the private and public sector need to hear and acknowledge in order for the economy to make continued progress.This report was published as Issue Paper Number 7, November 2011, in Advance & Rutgers Report
Solar Power in the Garden State
No full textThis special issue on energy and solar power in New Jersey was made possible because of the extensive portfolio of research centers and institutes at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy. Dr. Frank A. Felder, an Associate Research Professor, has been director of the School’s Center for Energy, Economic & Environmental Policy (CEEEP) since 2006. Frank is a nuclear engineer with a PhD degree from MIT, and he, along with his CEEEP colleague, Shankar N. Chandramowli, coauthored the main article in this issue of the Advance & Rutgers Report. CEEEP has worked extensively with the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities on projects, including New Jersey’s current Energy Master Plan.Shining Brightly: Bloustein's Centers of Excellence / by James W. Hughes and Joseph S. Seneca -- Solar Power in the Garden States / by Shankar N. Chandramowli and Frank A. Felder.Guest contributors include Shankar N. Chandramowli and Frank A. Felder, PhD, Director—Center for Energy, Economic and Environmental Policy at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public PolicyReports published as Issue Paper Number 5, May 2011, in Advance & Rutgers Report, Special Issue
The Receding Metropolitan Perimeter: A New Postsuburban Demographic Normal
No full textThe report traces population changes for two time periods: 1950 to 1980, reflecting the nation’s unprecedented postwar suburbanization, and 2010 to 2013, for the recovery period to date from aftershocks of the Great 2007-2009 Recession. The decades between the two time periods analyzed – the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s – are also examined for the influence of overall regional growth, age-structure variations and immigration levels on population change.
Twenty-seven of the suburban-ring counties in the four states witnessed explosive growth in the 30-year period from 1950 to 1980, gaining more than 5.3 million residents, and nearly doubling their population. By contrast, the regional core of eight urban counties in New York and New Jersey contracted sharply during the same period, losing nearly a million people.
Then, during the 2010–2013 period, the trend reversed: the regional core grew at a rate more than double that of the suburban ring, adding 85,284 persons per year. The regional core accounted for most of the total population growth, a phenomenon unparalleled since World War II. All of the suburban counties with population losses were on the metropolitan outer ring with the exception of Monmouth County, which suffered impacts from Superstorm Sandy.
The authors insistently caution that this shift in population growth is not necessarily a long-term change since the latest time period is so limited. However, the data suggest a change of the crest of the wave nature indicating that the multidecade pattern of further growth on the perimeter of the region out has shifted.
The report also discusses the influence of young adults’ locational preferences for urban lifestyle and workplace choices post-2000 as one contributing factor to these shifting population patterns
Economic Soft Patch 2: A Second-Half Rebound or Redux?
No full textAs this issue (August 2011) of the Advance & Rutgers Report was on press, the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce released revised Gross Domestic Product (GDP) estimates on July 29, 2011 that showed the December 2007– June 2009 recession to be far deeper than originally determined. The 4.1 percent recessionary decline in real GDP was revised to a much larger 5.1 percent decrease; therefore, the analysis of economic output starting on page 8 of this report is slightly altered.
Before the revisions, GDP had fully recovered all of its recessionary losses by the fourth quarter of 2010, 36 months after the recession began. However, the revised estimates show that GDP had not yet fully recovered its recessionary losses by the second quarter of 2011, 42 months after the recession began. This affects figures 3 and 4 on pages 9 and 10 of the report.
But the conclusions in the report remain valid: The U.S. economy today is close (real GDP in the second quarter of 2011 is 0.42 percent below the fourth quarter of 2007) to producing the same pre-recessionary economic output with about 7 million fewer private-sector workers, and the time elapsed for full recovery of economic output (42 months and counting) is far more severe than the recovery time (21 months) from the July 1981-November 1982 recession, the previous post-World War II record holder.This report was published as Issue Paper Number 6, August 2011, in Advance & Rutgers Report
Employment Recession and Recovery in the 50 States: A Further Update
No full textPrivate-sector Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth ratios and employment recovery rates following the Great Recession are calculated for the 50 states, as well as Census regions and divisions. GDP growth rates measure the ratio of state private sector GDP in 2012 to that in 2007. States with 2012 private-sector GDP levels above their 2007 levels have GDP growth ratios greater than one, while those with private-sector GDP lower than their 2007 levels have ratios below one. Employment recovery rates measure the percentage of each state’s private-sector job losses during the recession that have been recovered as of June 2013. The nation’s private-sector GDP growth ratio is 1.026, and its employment recovery rate is 81.7 percent.This is the third in a series of reports measuring how private-sector employment has changed in the 50 states during the Great Recession and the subsequent recovery.This report was published as Issue Paper Number 36, July 2013, in Rutgers Regional Report
Employment Recession and Recovery in the 50 States
No full textThe goal of this paper is to provide a report of record of the employment performance of the 50 states during the Great Recession and the ensuing recovery period. The analysis presented here uses U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data to consistently measure the changes in private-sector jobs over the course of the employment cycle from July 2003 through June 2011, a period covering economic expansion, recession, and recovery.The nation lost 8,838,000 private-sector jobs over the 25-month period from January 2008 to February 2010, a rate of loss of 7.6 percent. In the job-recovery period from February 2010 through June 2011, the nation regained 2,230,000 private-sector jobs, a rate of increase of 2.1 percent and a recovery of 25.2 percent of all the private-sector job losses of the recession.The first part of this report measures the private-sector employment performance of each of the states and regions of the country. It also measures the shares of each state and region of the national job losses and job gains during the various phases of the employment cycle.The second part of the report measures the duration of the employment recession, the number of private-sector jobs lost, and the rate of job decline for each state. It then measures the duration of the job-recovery period, the number of private-sector jobs gained, the rate of private-sector job gain, and the percentages of job losses that have been recovered for each state. These rates and durations of decline and recovery are compared with the analogous national rates.Rutgers Regional Report Issue Paper 28This report was published as Issue Paper Number 28, September 2011, in Rutgers Regional Report
Employment Recession and Recovery in the 50 States: An Update
No full textJob recovery rates are calculated for all 50 states. The rate measures the percentage of a state’s private-sector employment losses during and after the recession that have been recovered as of June 2012. As a benchmark for comparing individual states, the national private-sector job recovery rate is 49.3 percent.Public-sector employment (federal, state, and local) increased well into the national recession. It was affected by numerous factors (federal countercyclical spending, deep tax-revenue declines for state and local governments, and varying political responses at the state and local levels in terms of tax increases versus service reductions).This report was published as Issue Paper Number 30, August 2012, in Rutgers Regional Report
Seneca County History from the Close of the Revolutionary War to July 1880
No full textHistory of Seneca County, Ohio written by W. Lang "embracing many personal sketches of pioneers, anecdotes, and faithful descriptions of events pertaining to the organization of the county and its progress." Some of the people and events included in this publication are the Battle of Fort Stephenson, the death of Tecumseh, the first horse race in Seneca County, Fort Ball, Erastus Bowe, ancient fortifications, the first election and board meeting of the county commissioners, Governor Edward Tiffin, the Miami-Dayton-Michigan Canal and ensuing canal tax, the creeks in Seneca County, Josiah Hedges, Henry Cronise, the cholera epidemic, R.W. Shawhan, creation of plank roads and bridges over the Sandusky River, the Toledo War, and much more.
There are also chapters dedicated to each of the townships.
Disclaimer: There is extensive information written about several Native American tribes, particularly the Wyandot and Seneca, who lived in the area that is now Seneca County. However, these accounts are written from the perspective of the author, a white male living in the late 1880s. Therefore, there is a possibility of potentially harmful language and opinions in this book
Can the Release of Only a Few Subarachnoidal and Basal Cistern Adhesion Resolve Postinfective Hydrocephalus?
No full text- …
