# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Latest Telecommuting Statistics

Please cite GlobalWorkplaceAnalytics.com when you use this data

Reporters: We are constantly updating our database of over 4,000 documents on telework/telecommuting, alternative workplace strategies, workplace flexibility, and employee wellness/and well-being ROI. Please call or email kate-at-globalworkplaceanalytics.com, 760-703-0377 (Pacific Time) for the latest data or for additional information (such as regional data, demographic breakdowns, breakdowns by class of worker).

Updated June, 2017

Below are the latest statistics on the work-at-home/telework population in the U.S. based on an analysis of 2005-2015 American Community Survey (US Census Bureau) data conducted by GlobalWorkplaceAnalytics.com. Similar state and county data are available through 2015.

The American Community Survey (ACS) derives its data on work-at-home from the question: What was your primary means of transportation to work during the survey week? "Worked at home" is one of the choices. Therefore, all we know about this population is that they worked primarily at home, which we assume means at least half-time.

Though often used interchangeably, 'telework' is defined as the substitution of technology for travel, while telecommuting is more narrowly defined as the substitution of technology for commuter travel. Thus if someone takes work home after being at the office it is considered telework but not telecommuting, and if someone works at home instead of driving to an office they are telecommuting. Both terms were coined by Jack Nilles in the 1970s. Note: many people and organizations are moving away from both terms in favor of distributed work, mobile work, remote work, smart working (UK), and workshifting (Canada).

While there is no Census Bureau or government produced data provides additional granularity on the frequency of telework, Global Workplace Analytics' research finds that:

50% of the US workforce holds a job that is compatible with at least partial telework and approximately 20-25% of the workforce teleworks at some frequency

80% to 90% of the US workforce says they would like to telework at least part time. Two to three days a week seems to be the sweet spot that allows for a balance of concentrative work (at home) and collaborative work (at the office).

Fortune 1000 companies around the globe are entirely revamping their space around the fact that employees are already mobile. Studies repeatedly show they are not at their desk 50-60% of the time.

A typical telecommuter is college-educated, 45 years old or older, and earns an annual salary of $58,000 while working for a company with more than 100 employees. 75% of employees who work from home earn over $65,000 per year, putting them in the upper 80th percentile of all employees, home or office-based.

Regular work-at-home, among the non-self-employed population, has grown by 115% since 2005, nearly 10x faster than the rest of the workforce.

3.7 million employees (2.8% of the workforce) now work from home at least half the time.

The employee population as a whole grew by 1.9% from 2013 to 2014, while employees who telecommuter population grew 5.6%.

Forty percent more U.S. employers offered flexible workplace options than they did five years ago. Still, only 7% make it available to most of their employees.

Larger companies are most likely to offer telecommuting options to most of their employees.

New England and Mid-Atlantic region employers are the most likely to offer telecommuting options.

Full-time employees are four times more likely to have work-at-home options than part-time workers.

Non-union workers are twice as likely to have access to telecommuting, but union employee access is growing rapidly.

Note: It is critical to separate the self-employed from the employee telework and telecommuter population for the purpose of understanding trends as they are moving in opposite directions. About 22% of the self-employed population work primarily from home. That population (self-employed and home-based) declined by 3.4% since between 2005 and 2014. The loss was entirely attributable to non-incorporated home-based businesses (which declined by 9.8%). The self-employed incorporated home-based business population grew by 18.7%.

Reporters: call 760-703-0377 or email Kate@globalworkplaceanalytics.com for additional information about:

State and local telecommuting numbers

Telecommuter demographics (gender, age, education, private/public sector, industry, income, etc.)

Global and U.S. drivers of telework

Obstacles to telework

Advantages and disadvantages for employers/employees

Industry contacts/potential interviewees

Global and regional trends

Workplace flexibility and its impact on employee well-being

Who wants to telework, who can, who offers it, where teleworkers work

Other agile and distributed workplace trends

About Global Workplace Analytics:

Kate Lister, president of San Diego-based Global Workplace Analytics is one of the foremost authorities on how, when, and where people are working. In addition to her work helping large employers deploy telework, activity-based work, hoteling, well-being and other agile workplace strategies, she has compiled a database of over 3,000 case studies, academic papers, and the documents on the topic. Global Workplace Analytics also offers free calculators for estimating the employer, employee, and environmental impact of various workplace strategies including telework. Thanks to their research sponsors, they also make available free white papers on various topics related to agile work.

Kate is available for interviews and to help reporters identify additional resources. She can be reached at 760-703-0377 (Pacific Time) or Kate@GlobalWorkplaceAnalytics.com.

Additional (free) Resources That May be of Interest:

1. An answer to the question, "Why there are so many wide-ranging estimates of the size of the teleworker population?"

2. Our Workplace Savings Calculator™ that allows employers and others estimate the employer, employee, and environmental impact of various workplace strategies including telework

3. Our sister site with resources for individual looking for home-based work

4. Our 27-page white paper, The State of Telework in the U.S. and other white papers offer in depth analyses of the data below and more. Note: some of our reports include data that is older than the data here; please refer to this page for the most recent information. News reporters may call or email for the very latest numbers.

5. Estimate your employee, employer and environmental mobile work savings potential: You can estimate your own potential savings from mobile work with our free Workplace Savings Calculator™.

Who Telecommutes? Telecommuter Demographics (updated 3-15-2016):

A typical telecommuter is older (50+), college educated, salaried, non-union employee.

Relative to the total population, a disproportionate share of employees in the following occupations telecommute (in order of largest disproportion to smallest):

Computer and Mathematical

Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations

Farming, Fishing, and Forestry

Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations

Legal Occupations

Community and Social Service Occupations

Architecture and Engineering Occupations

Business and Financial

Using home as a 'reasonable accommodation' per the Americans with Disabilities Act, 463,000 disabled employees regularly work from home (7.1% of the disabled).

Non-exempt employees are far less likely to work at home on a regular or ad hoc basis than salaried employees.

Larger companies are more likely to allow telecommuting than smaller ones.

Non-union organizations are more likely to offer telecommuting those with unions.

What Is the Potential Bottom Line Impact or Return on Investment of the Widespread Adoption of Telework in the U.S.? (updated March, 2016)

If those with compatible jobs and a desire to work from home did so just half the time (roughly the national average for those who do so regularly) the national savings would total over $700 Billion a year including:

A typical business would save $11,000 per person per year

The telecommuters would save between $2,000 and $7,000 a year

The greenhouse gas reduction would be the equivalent of taking the entire New York State workforce permanently off the road.

The Congressional Budget Office's estimate of the entire five-year cost of implementing telework throughout government ($30 million) is less than a third of the cost of lost productivity from a single day shut down of federal offices in Washington DC due to snow ($100 million).

The latest telework savings numbers are summarized here (these may not match those in the white papers as they have been updated with recent data).

For details about how these telework savings were calculated, and for similar information regarding telework in the Federal Government, U.K. and Canada, download our free white papers.

Additional Information on Telework / Telecommuting Trends / Statistics / Costs & Benefits

Reporters: We are constantly updating our database of over 4,000 documents on telework, office hoteling, activity-based work, co-working, work at home, and other emerging workplace strategies, and workplace flexibility. Please call or email for the latest data or for additional information (kate-at-globalworkplaceanalytics.com, 760-703-0377 Pacific Time).

About: Kate Lister is president of Global Workplace Analytics, a consulting and research firm that focuses on the business case for emerging workplace strategies. Global Workplace Analytics is based in San Diego, California.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Latest Telecommuting Statistics - Global Workplace Analytics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Latest Telecommuting Statistics Reporters: We are constantly updating our database of over 4,000 documents on telework/telecommuting, alternative workplace strategies, workplace flexibility, and employee wellness/and well-being ROI. Please call or email kate-at-globalworkplaceanalytics.com, 760-703-0377 (Pacific Time) for the latest data or for additional information (such as regional data, demographic breakdowns, breakdowns by class of worker).

# data[].attributes.body
Please look at  Canadian points of view to search for more on this topic.

The pros and cons of telecommuting.

Authors:

Marc Saltzman Special to the Star

Source:

Toronto Star (Canada). 10/28/2015.

Document Type:

Article

Abstract:

With an average Toronto commute time of 66 minutes each way, you can bet your brake lights many would work from home in a heartbeat. Telecommuting is much easier these days, thanks in part to technological tools such as high-speed Internet, inexpensive mobile devices and secure cloud services that remotely host your files. Skyping into meetings is becoming commonplace for many small- to medium-sized businesses. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Accession Number:

6FPTS2015102835453212

The pros and cons of telecommuting.

Listen       American Accent       Australian Accent       British Accent      Working from home creates work-life balance, but you lose on-site brainstormingWith an average Toronto commute time of 66 minutes each way, you can bet your brake lights many would work from home in a heartbeat.Telecommuting is much easier these days, thanks in part to technological tools such as high-speed Internet, inexpensive mobile devices and secure cloud services that remotely host your files. Skyping into meetings is becoming commonplace for many small- to medium-sized businesses.But organizations (and employees) need to weigh the pros and cons before deciding to work from home. Here are some factors to consider:ProsFor the worker: Staying at home paves the way for a better work-life balance. Many take their kids to and from school, spend less on professional attire and lunches (and eat healthier) and aren't distracted with colleagues asking for something or being dragged into meetings where you're not needed).A Stanford University report and a joint study by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Northwestern University both found that those who work from home are less stressed and more productive than those who work a 9-to-5 job out of the home.For the business: You can hire the best person for the job - even if they live across the country or around the world.Candidates who want to work from home may accept a lower salary than those who must commute to work.As a cost-saving consideration, you don't have to pay for office space-related expenses for an at-home worker. And if the above-mentioned study is correct, those who work from home are happier and more productive, which is good for morale and efficiency.For the environment and other cubicle dwellers: Not only can telecommuting save time and money but it has an eco-advantage, too. Fewer cars on the road reduces gas emissions that contribute to pollution and global warming. The more companies allow fortelecommuting, the lighter the roads might be for those who must drive - or take public transit or taxis - to get to the office. In other words, everyone wins.ConsFor the worker: In a 2002 survey conducted by University of Southern California, telecommuters said interpersonal relationships were missed while working at home. This includes having coffee or lunches with colleagues, water cooler gossip, collaborating on team projects and perhaps after-work drinks. While it may sound appealing to work from home, many have trouble staying motivated without a supervisor or boss looking over their shoulder. Juggling kids and remaining focused could also be a challenge.For the business: From a creativity standpoint, there might be a loss of on-site brainstorming, plus allowing some employees to work from home (and not others) could lead to lower office morale. Without physical proximity with your employees, there's an increased security and privacy risk. Not only could it be easier for a disgruntled at-home worker to wreak havoc, perhaps by stealing data, but even accidental breaches can happen (such as giving your teen the wrong USB stick) or a breach in the network connection between the office and the home. Telecommuting might also complicate insurance policies and workers' compensation.Given the advantages and challenges, a business must first assess whether telecommuting is feasible for employees - obviously, some positions aren't conducive - and companies should ensure the person is self-motivated.Finally, remember that it doesn't have to be "all or none," as some businesses restrict at-home working to a day or two a week.Copyright of Toronto Star (Canada) is the property of Toronto Star. The copyright in an individual article may be maintained by the author in certain cases. Content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. Source: Toronto Star (Canada), 10/28/2015
Item: 6FPTS2015102835453212

# data[].attributes.body
Speaking 600: Preparing for your final exam

Instructions for students:

You will use information from your research as well as your background knowledge and experience to discuss the topic of telework. Search online for credible sources which you will use to provide support for your ideas. You should bring your notes and the researched articles that you have printed to the exam.  You cannot bring or refer to any electronic devices such as computers, laptops or cellphones.

You will have 25-30 minutes for your discussion and you should spend a significant amount of the time discussing questions pros and cons of the issue.

You will be evaluated on your ability to:

·        demonstrate that you have researched and understand all sides of the issue (supported by research);

·        provide your personal opinion of the topic (supported by research);

·        play a variety of group discussion roles and participate effectively in a group setting; and

·        demonstrate that you can use a variety of language functions related to group discussion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Outline Advantages Findings & Results Discussion Recommendation & Conclusion Advantages Findings Result Daycare

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Speaking600 Yushuo Lu(Joshua) Montreal the most livable city. Daycare cost Housing price The cost of raising children Recommendation & Conclusion Thanks for watching Cohen, T. (2011, Jul 04). Quebec city, montreal ranked most livable cities: Survey.Postmedia News From http://0 search.proquest.com.innopac.lib.bcit.ca/docview/875196437?accountid=26389Pratt, G. A. (2014). Brown, M. (2014, March 12).

# data[].attributes.body
https://prezi.com/6io1kql6sjfm/perks-of-living-in-ottawa/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hospitality
Reference
Weather in Ottawa
Ottawa's Plan for Seniors
Average temperature 2015 (Summer)
$500,000

Improve public areas

Promise from government
Sophie Ahn
June 17th, 2016
Reading 600
About Ottawa
Ottawa?
Outline of the Presentation
Background Information

Seniors in Ottawa

Hospitality

Weather

References
Perks of Living in Ottawa
Located in Ontario

Capital City

Fourth Largest City

Most Educated City
http://pictures.4ever.eu/tag/27833/ottawa
http://www.hikebiketravel.com/22478/30-fun-weird-interesting-facts-ottawa/
http://www.ottawaseniorsexpo.com/
http://0-search.proquest.com.innopac.lib.bcit.ca/docview/1111842989?pq origsite=summon
http://ottawa.weatherstats.ca/charts/temperature-1year.html
http://www.statista.com/statistics/440923/total-number-of-hospital-establishments-in-canada-by-province/
Positive Effects
Most hospitals located

More support program

Competition

Lower death rate

More hospital per person (3.7)
Cooler

Between 16 to 21'c

Sunny

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Ontario Capital City Fourth Largest City

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Hospitality Reference Weather in Ottawa Ottawa

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Presentation Background Information Seniors in Ottawa Hospitality Weather References Perks of Living

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
HospitalityReferenceWeather in OttawaOttawa's Plan for SeniorsAverage temperature 2015 (Summer)$500,000 Improve public areas Promise from governmentSophie AhnJune 17th, 2016Reading 600About Ottawa Ottawa?

# data[].attributes.body
AJ

# data[].attributes.headline
Debate Assessment GMO foods Thursday  June 16th

# data[].attributes.subject
Debate Assessment GMO foods Thursday  June 16th

# data[].attributes.body
Genetically modified (GM) food is food that has been altered from its natural state through manipulation of its deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). This process begins in the laboratory, where scientists isolate an organism’s gene that is carrying a particular desirable characteristic, such as drought resistance. This gene is removed from the plant and inserted into another plant in a related species in order to provide the recipient plant species with drought resistance. Thus, the new, altered plant has been genetically modified.

In 1973, the first gene transfer to create a recombinant organism occurred when a bacterium received a viral gene. Gene transfer experiments expanded to include non-related species. A gene from a flounder was inserted into a tomato to make it withstand cold, and a gene from a chicken was added to a potato to make it more resistant to disease.

Research on the genetic modification of plants focused on making them more nutritious, more resistant to pests and viruses, and more drought tolerant than their natural counterparts. Some transgenic plants were modified to be resistant to herbicides. The Monsanto Company, a leading corporation in the biotechnology industry, produced an herbicide, Roundup, and then created a genetically modified form of canola that was resistant to Roundup. The development allowed farmers to spray the herbicide without damaging the canola crop.

By the mid-1980s, the fruits of genetic modification were being field tested. By the early 1990s, large areas were being sown with seeds of genetically modified soy, corn, canola, and cotton to increase the crop yield.

In the early stages of research into genetic modification, the new science was hailed for the potentially beneficial results it would have on the food supply: greater biodiversity, better crop yields, increased nutritional value and longer shelf lives for fruits and vegetables.

However, when genetically modified crops were grown commercially and began to appear on grocery shelves, there were questions about food safety and the impact of GM foods on the environment.

Understanding the Discussion

Biotechnology: The use of biological processes in industrial production. The manipulation of genes to produce commercial products is a form of biotechnology.

Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA): A double-stranded molecule that carries the genetic information of living organisms. Each DNA strand consists of a chain of polymers which are comprised of subunits, called nucleotides.

Gene: The basic sequence of nucleotides that carries a trait from one generation to the next. Genes have fixed positions on chromosomes.

Genetic Engineering: The modification of the genetic make-up of an organism, either through the addition of genes from another organism or from the silencing of the organism’s own genes.

Recombinant: Containing genetically engineered DNA.

Transgenic: An animal or plant that contains genes from a different species.

History

Prior to the 1990s, farmers improved crop and livestock quality through traditional practices, such as cross-breeding and hybridization. In 1953, when James Watson and Francis Crick deciphered the structure of the DNA molecule and its role in the transmission of hereditary information, cross-breeding moved from the farmers’ fields to the laboratory.

Fifty years after this breakthrough, researchers decoded the genetic sequence of rice (2002) and completed the Human Genome Project, which involved creating a map of the human genetic code. Knowledge of the function of each gene made the manipulation and transference of human genes theoretically possible.

Early breakthroughs in the field of genetically modified food production include Monsanto’s introduction of a species of corn with a built-in insecticide. In the 1990s, Ingo Potrykus created a new breed of rice, known as “golden rice.” Golden rice is fortified with vitamin A and beta carotene, and was designed to combat hunger in developing nations.

The first genetically modified food arrived on the shelves of US grocery stores in early 1994. Genetic modification had been used to create a tomato, known as the Flavr-Savr, with a longer shelf life. The Flavr-Savr hit Canadian markets in 1995.

In 1996, genetically modified crops were planted on two million hectares globally. By 1998, genetically modified crops covered twenty-eight million hectares. By 2006, 102 million hectares were being utilized for genetically modified crops, which were being grown by over ten million farmers.

In Canada, genetically modified food is subject to regulation and inspection by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), under the auspices of Health Canada. Since 1993, more than eighty genetically modified foods have been approved. Since Health Canada makes no distinction between approved genetically modified food and conventional food, its requirements for labelling are the same. Labelling a food as “genetically modified” is strictly optional.

Concerns about genetically modified food centre on questions of long-term health risks of GM foods that have not been subject to years of rigorous laboratory testing. The concerns about GM foods being researched include the inherent stability of the transferred genes when ingested, increased resistance to antibodies among GM foods, and the threat of a wider base for hidden allergens in the food supply.

Environmentalists, scientists and farmers have expressed concerns about the environmental impact of planting GM crops. The potential devastation of various pollinating insect populations as a result of the use of insecticide-resistant crops, the creation of “superweeds” through cross-pollination between common weeds and GM crops; and the contamination of organic crops are among some of the concerns cited.

Genetically Modified Food Today

In Canada, 10.4 million hectares of farmland support GM crops, primarily canola, maize and soybean. A world leader in the production of GM crops, Canada is fifth after the United States, Brazil, Argentina, and India. Over 97 percent of the entire 2012 Canadian canola crop was genetically modified; Alberta alone produces an estimated three million tons of transgenic canola. Since most of these crops become components of processed foods, it is difficult to avoid ingesting them. The vast majority of processed food in Canada has some degree of genetic modification.

Being able to identify a genetically modified product on the shelves of Canadian supermarkets is becoming increasingly difficult. While some European countries require foods to be labelled “GMO” if they are comprised of more than 0.9 percent of the food item, Health Canada has no such requirement. Advocates of labelling, such as Greenpeace, see labelling as the only way to help consumers know what they are eating. In 2001, Bill C-287, an Act to Amend the Food and Drugs Act, called for the labelling of genetically modified food. However, when the bill came before the House of Commons, Parliament defeated it. Advocacy groups continue to support labelling. In 2013, Nature’s Path Organic—a Richmond, British Columbia organic foods company—involved itself in a ballot battle over GM food labelling in Washington state, donating $250,000 to groups supporting the labelling bill. Nature’s Path officials said they hoped that the passing of such a bill would cause a ripple-effect that might encourage GM food labelling in Canada. The measure failed to pass, with 54.8 percent of voters opposed to labelling GM foods.

As the biotechnology industry has developed, its business practices have drawn attention. Corporations have issued patents on seeds created in their laboratories, leaving farmers unable to harvest the seeds for the next growing season. The case of Percy Schmeiser drew international attention to the issue of patenting.

In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada delivered a precedent-setting verdict on the case of Monsanto vs. Percy Schmeiser, a farmer from Bruno, Saskatchewan. Monsanto sued Schmeiser for stealing its seeds and planting them on his farm. These two acts constitute an infringement on Monsanto’s patent on its Roundup-Ready canola. While Schmeiser protested that the seeds had blown onto his property, the Supreme Court’s decision in favour of Monsanto included recognition of Monsanto’s ownership of the patent. Organizations including the Council of Canadians, the David Suzuki Foundation, Greenpeace, and other groups continue to lobby against the privatization and the patenting of living organisms.

Attempting to simplify genetically modified seed control, the US Department of Agriculture and international seed companies introduced “terminator seeds,” which were engineered to limit the use of genetically modified plants. Terminator seeds act by sterilizing second generation seeds or by restricting their function to the addition of a chemical agent that is exclusively available from the producing company. The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity insisted on upholding a moratorium on terminator seeds in 2000, and again in 2006.

The biotechnology industry is a rapidly growing industry in North and South America, but most of the rest of the globe is taking more time to evaluate the novel crops and foods, and the many economic, political, and ethical questions that accompany their production and distribution. While advocacy groups and informed consumers remain active in the GM foods debate, surveys have found that the average consumer is either uninformed about GM foods or apathetic to the issue. A 2012 study conducted by the British Columbia Growers’ Association found that 76 percent of Canadians feel the government has provided insufficient information on GM foods. An additional 9 percent had never heard of GM foods.

Bibliography

Books

McHughen, Alan. Pandora’s Picnic Basket: The Potential and Hazards of Genetically Modified Foods. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000. Print.

Nottingham, Stephen. Eat Your Genes: How Genetically Modified Food Is Entering Our Diet. London: Zed, 2003. Print.

Ticciati, Laura, and Ticciati, Robin. Genetically Engineered Food. Are They Safe? You Decide. Chicago: Keats, 1998. Print.

Periodicals

Castaldo, Joe. “Frankenfood’s Revenge.” Canadian Business 81.2 (2008): 21. Canadian Points of View Reference Centre. EBSCO. 21 July 2009.

“Changing Nature.” Canada and the World Backgrounder 78.3 (2013): 36–38. Print.

Cheadle, Bruce. “Groups Launch Court Challenge of Federal Approval of Genetically Modified Salmon.” Maclean’s. Rogers Media, 20 Jan. 2014. Web. 31 Oct. 2014.

“Eat Like a Canadian.” Alberta Views 11.2 (2008): 24. Canadian Points of View Reference Centre. EBSCO. 21 July 2009.

Gillam, Carey. “Most ‘Natural’ Packaged Foods in U.S. Not GMO-Free.” Globe and Mail. Globe and Mail, 8 Oct. 2014. Web. 31 Oct. 2014.

Hein, Treena. “GMO, Yes or No?” Food in Canada 74.7 (2014): 52–54. Print.

Manasan, Althea. “GMO Fears Do Not ‘Translate to the Average Consumer.’” CBC News. CBC, 11 Apr. 2013. Web. 15 Oct. 2015.

“Most Canadians Support Mandatory Labelling of GM Foods.” CCPA Monitor 19.6 (2012): 12–13. Print.

Parent, Rachel. “Canada’s New Nutrition Labels Are Still Missing GMO Labels.” HuffPost Living Canada. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 21 Aug. 2014. Web. 15 Oct. 2015.

Shore, Randy. “Vancouver Kicks Off GMO-Food Awareness Campaign.” Vancouver Sun. Postmedia Network, 20 Oct. 2014. Web. 31 Oct. 2014.

Shultz, Judy. “Like It or Not, Genetically Modified Foods Here to Stay.” Edmonton Journal. Postmedia, 10 Oct. 2007. Web. 21 July 2009.

Websites

Ahmad, Tariq. “Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: Canada.” Law Library of Congress. LOC.gov, 9 June 2015. Web. 15 Oct. 2015.

# data[].attributes.body
Final presentations will take place Tuesday June 21 AND 22
We will have 5 presentations on June 21 and 4 presentations on June 22.

Please follow the instructions in the handout exactly to get make sure you get FULL MARKS

# data[].attributes.body
The Effect of Mobile Devices on Personal Relationships: Overview

Listen       American Accent       Australian Accent       British Accent      Related Items

Point: Mobile Devices Can Harm Personal Relationships.

Counterpoint: Mobile Devices Keep Us All Connected.

The Effect of Mobile Devices on Personal Relationships: Guide to Critical Analysis.

Choose a Topic.

Evaluate a Website.

Write a Topic Sentence.

How To Understand the Bias of a Publication

CURRICULUM STANDARDS--Canada.

IntroductionMobile devices are very important in the lives of many Canadians. Wireless devices such as smartphones and tablets enable users to connect to the virtual world anywhere and at any time. Mobile applications (mobile apps) provide tools for communication, entertainment, learning, and time management as well as many other functions. Social networking websites allow users to communicate by text, video, and images through online profiles. Generations who have never lived in a world without online communications are digital natives and rely heavily on mobile devices in their everyday lives.This increasing use of mobile devices has raised concerns about their impact on personal relationships. Mobile devices and social networking sites are used to contact friends and family members through texting and social networks as well as to post photographs, share videos, and blog about topics of interest. This constant use of mobile devices may impact face-to-face communication and threaten personal relationships. Accessing a smartphone or computer may disrupt traditional social situations and draw interest away from other endeavors. All of these concerns have caused media observers to emphasize the need for digital literacy so that mobile device users can understand technology's social impact and be able to question and evaluate what they see and hear in their online world.Understanding the Discussion Digital literacy: The capacity to analyse, question, and critically understand digital media texts in order to evaluate the validity of the information they provide.Digital natives: Individuals born in or brought up during the age of digital technology who use computers, cell phones, and social networking to communicate on a daily basis.Mobile applications: Software designed to run on portable wireless devices such as smartphones and tablets; also called apps.Mobile devices: Portable communication tools such as smartphones and tablets that connect to the Internet wirelessly.Social networking: Websites where members connect with others and post information in the form of profiles, which can include photos, videos, blogs, and comments.Smartphone: A cell phone that has the ability to run software programs like a personal computer.HistoryTwo technologies have driven the popularity of mobile devices: cell phones and computers. The first cell phone was made by engineer Martin Cooper in 1973, but it was not until 1984 that technology company Motorola started producing cell phones for the general public. The very first commercial cell phone weighed about two pounds. When British computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web in 1989 and opened it to public use in 1993, computers immediately started to change social communication. Also in 1993, Bellsouth and IBM created the Simon communicator phone, which combined both computer and phone functions.By the end of March 1999, Canada had become the first nation in the world to connect all of its schools and libraries to the Internet. However, in 1999, only 36 per cent of Canadians had a personal Internet connection, according to Valerie Steeves's 2014 MediaSmarts research study Young Canadians in a Wired World, Phase III: Trends and Recommendations. This would soon change as computers became more prevalent.One of the first widely adopted software applications was e-mail. At first, e-mail was an easy substitute for phone calls and letters. Instead of coordinating schedules for a live phone call or waiting for postal delivery, e-mail was a way to communicate efficiently whether the person was available or not. E-mail could be checked and responded to anytime. Similarly, instant messages and phone text message became popular because they allowed rapid communication without having to synchronize in real time.The social potential of Internet technology was recognized by Canadians early on. According to Steeves, by 2000, Canadian students with Internet access reported enjoying e-mail and chat rooms, and by 2005, instant messaging and games were also increasingly popular. However, the growth of social networking websites caused a major increase in online activity. The site MySpace appeared in 2003 and quickly became popular among young people; it was followed by Facebook in 2004. Initially only for college students, Facebook expanded to allow access to any user over age thirteen in 2006 and quickly became one of the world's most popular websites.Meanwhile, hardware technology continued to improve and devices became cheaper, giving more people more frequent access. Wireless technology in smartphones and tablets enabled users to access the Internet anywhere and at any time. Research in Motion (later Blackberry), a Canadian company based in Waterloo, Ontario, had developed mobile pagers and e-mail devices in the late 1990s, and in 2003, it launched the first cell phone to integrate e-mail, texting, and a web browser. Technology company Apple launched its first iPhone in 2007, making touch screen technology an industry standard. According to tech writer Brian Chen, by the end of 2010, Apple had sold 73.5 million iPhones. In 2008 Apple launched the App Store, giving iPhone users access to hundreds of mobile apps, and competitors followed suit.Mobile devices allowed users to pay bills, download music and videos, take pictures, and communicate with family and friends. Ownership of these devices grew steadily. According to Statistics Canada, 79 per cent of Canadian households had access to the Internet in 2010, and 35 per cent of used mobile devices to access the Internet. Young people especially saw these communication tools as a critical aspect of their social life as social networking websites grew in popularity throughout the world. This prevalence of technology led many children to grow up as digital natives, accustomed to using the Internet and mobile devices from a young age, while even older generations found increasingly difficult to function in society without some level of digital literacy. Researchers became interested in how the ubiquity of mobile devices was shaping social interaction on multiple levels. For instance, some evidence suggests that digital natives have come to view online relationships as crucial and to find text-based communication preferable to face-to-face interaction.The Effect of Mobile Devices on Personal Relationships TodayAccording to Statistics Canada, in 2012, 83 per cent of Canadian households had access to the Internet and 59 per cent of used mobile devices to do so -- a significant increase even from 2010. Worldwide, mobile phone use skyrocketed to over six billion subscribers in 2013. The Life Online section of Steeves's 2014 MediaSmarts report found that by grade eleven, 85 per cent of teenagers had their own cell phones. As a result, these mobile devices have become the primary way for students to access the Internet.Steeves's study also explains that young people use mobile devices primarily for entertainment and communication through social networking. In 2013, the top four favorite websites of Canadian students were YouTube, Facebook, Google, and Twitter. Three-quarters of students maintained a profile on a social media site or kept a blog. In 2014, Facebook estimated that nineteen million Canadians use Facebook regularly, with fourteen million doing so every day. Fifteen million of them accessed the site with a mobile device. It is evident that the constant connection made possible by mobile devices has become a major part of the daily lives of many Canadians.The effects of such heavy use of mobile devices continue to raise concerns about privacy and personal relationships. In a March 2015 Globe and Mail editorial, essayist William Kowalski warned cell phone users that, "It's possible to find out nearly everything about you through a search of your phone. In the wrong hands, that kind of power is something to fear." The ethics of digital privacy has become an important area of debate, especially considering the wide variety of photographs, videos, and other personal information shared online, and the potential for privacy breaches or police searches. Some see the connectedness offered by near-constant Internet use as a positive development; others worry about its social effects. While opinions on the issue vary greatly, most agree on the need to promote digital literacy to empower people so that they can respond effectively to the technology that surrounds them each and every day.Bibliography BooksDeVito, Joseph A., Rena Shimoni, and Dawne Clark. Messages: Building Interpersonal Communication Skills. 5th Canadian ed. Don Mills: Pearson Canada, 2015. Print.Hanson, Janice. 24/7: How Cell Phones and the Internet Change the Way We Live, Work and Play. Westport: Praeger, 2007. Print.Steeves, Valerie. Young Canadians in a Wired World, Phase III: Life Online. Ottawa: MediaSmarts, 2014. PDF file.Steeves, Valerie. Young Canadians in a Wired World, Phase III: Trends and Recommendations. Ottawa: MediaSmarts, 2014. PDF file.Zuckerberg, Randi. Dot Complicated: Untangling Our Wired Lives. New York: Harper, 2013. Print.PeriodicalsFeschuk, Scott. “Damn You, Sum of Human Knowledge.” Maclean’s 128.12 (2015): 61. Print.Websites and Digital FilesKingston, Anne, and Alex Ballingall. "Public Display of Disaffection." Maclean's. Rogers, 15 Sept. 2011. Web. 9 Mar. 2015.McDowell, Adam. “Why the Phone Call Deserves a Second Chance.” National Post. Postmedia Network, 16 June 2015. Web. 12 Oct. 2015.Statistics Canada. "Canadian Internet Use Survey, 2012." Statistics Canada. Government of Canada, 26 Nov. 2013. Web. 12 Mar. 2015.Copyright of Canadian Points of View: The Effect of Mobile Devices on Personal Relationships is the property of Great Neck Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After months of wading into presidential waters with shallow foreign policy proposals -- including bombing "the s*** out of" terror groups and inking a " totally renegotiated" nuclear deal with Iran -- Donald Trump is finally jumping into the deep end.

During an interview with the New York Times that spanned two phone calls and clocked in at 100 minutes, Trump, answering a bevy of foreign policy questions with his trademark bravado, outlined an "America First" vision for the world that would come to fruition with business deals and tough negotiations.

"I'm not isolationist, but I am 'America First.' So I like the expression. I'm 'America First,'" Trump said, according to the Times' transcript, which was published Saturday. Trump glommed on to the term, once used as the name for an isolationist political party in the U.S. in the 1940s, after the Times' David Sanger suggested it. "We have been disrespected, mocked and ripped off for many, many years by people that were smarter, shrewder, tougher. We were the big bully, but we were not smartly led."

Trump added: "We're going to be friendly with everybody, but we're not going to be taken advantage of by anybody."

Specifically, Trump doesn't want to be cheated by Middle East allies like Saudi Arabia, who he said needed to step up their efforts in the fight against terror.

"We are not being reimbursed for our protection of many of the countries that you'll be talking about, that, including Saudi Arabia," Trump said. "I would say at a minimum, we have to be reimbursed, substantially reimbursed...I think if Saudi Arabia was without the cloak of American protection of our country's, of U.S. protection, think of Saudi Arabia. I don't think it would be around."

When asked specifically if he would be willing to tell nations like Saudi Arabia that the U.S. would no longer purchase oil until they sent ground troops to fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syia (ISIS), Trump responded: "The answer is, probably yes."

In the wide-ranging Times interview, Trump also touched on the Iran nuclear deal, which he has previously said he would want to renegotiate.

"Certainly the deal is not long enough. Because at the end of the deal they're going to have great nuclear capability," he said. "I would never have given them back the $150 billion under any circumstances. I would've never allowed that to happen."

The GOP front-runner asserted that the U.S. also "cannot be the policeman of the world" when it comes to allies in the Asia Pacific region, suggesting he would like to see Japan and South Korea develop nuclear weaponry in order to combat North Korea.

"Unfortunately, we have a nuclear world now," Trump said. "Would I rather have North Korea have [nuclear weapons] with Japan sitting there having them also? You may very well be better off if that's the case. In other words, where Japan is defending itself against North Korea, which is a real problem."

He called the current U.S. relationship with Japan "a pretty one-sided agreement" because "if we're attacked, they do not have to come to our defense."

But "if they're attacked," he said, "we have to come totally to their defense. And that is a -- that's a real problem."

Trump would be open to withdrawing U.S. forces from Japan and South Korea if the two nations did not give more to the costs of keeping those troops in the area.

To combat Chinese aggression in the South China Sea, the businessman again said he would use a more corporate, and less diplomatic, strategy.

"I would use trade to negotiate," Trump said. "Would I go to war? Look, let me just tell you. There's a question I wouldn't want to answer. Because I don't want to say I won't or I will."

"I will tell you this," he continued. "This is the one aspect I can tell you. I would use trade, absolutely, as a bargaining chip."

Trump, who recently came under fire for proposing the U.S. back out of the NATO alliance, asserted that experts have started to come around to his way of thinking.

"I said something a few days ago and I was vastly criticized," Trump said. "I notice now this morning, people are saying Donald Trump is a genius."

Trump's main problem with NATO?

"Number one: We pay far too much," he said. "We are spending -- you know, in fact, they're even making it so the percentages are greater. NATO is unfair, economically, to us, to the United States. Because it really helps them more so than the United States, and we pay a disproportionate share."

Trump also answered questions about the foreign policy team he's amassed, just days after the billionaire released his short list of advisers.

When asked how he came to settle on these experts, Trump said they were "recommended by people."

"These are people recommended - people that I respect recommended them," he said. "I've heard very good things about them. In addition, we're going to be adding some additional names that I've liked over the years."

Some of those names, however, weren't available to work with the presidential campaign, which Trump lamented as the fault of television networks like CNN and Fox News.

"Many of them that I actually like a lot and that like me a lot and that want to do 100 percent, many of them are tied up with contracts working for various networks, you understand?" He said. "There are some that are tied up where they have a contract with, as an example, they might have a contract with Fox, they may have a contract with CNN, and they can't do it."

Trump did not answer when asked whether he had already met with his foreign policy team.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Donald Trump's "America First" vision of the world looks like

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After months of wading into presidential waters with shallow foreign policy proposals -- including bombing "the s*** out of" terror groups and inking a " totally renegotiated" nuclear deal with Iran -- Donald Trump is finally jumping into the deep end.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Iraq... America just can't quit you. For 23 years and across four presidencies, American planes have been waging war either against or on behalf of Iraqis. And if President Obama's prediction of a long-term struggle against Isis is correct, it might soon be five presidents and a quarter of a century.

How does that keep happening? How did a candidate who won the nation's highest office on a platform of ending the war in Iraq find himself six years later announcing yet another military engagement in Iraq? How has a president who has seemingly made it his priority to pivot to Asia, rely less on the military and put forward a more restrained foreign policy been thwarted once again?

A good part of the reason is that while Americans might talk about imposing limits on American power and defining our global interests more narrowly, we rarely follow through - and here Obama, who has sought to step back from using American power to solve every international problem, must shoulder some of the blame.

The fact is, the same president who has tried to offer something of a more modest and realistic vision for American foreign policy can't seem to keep himself out of the swampy environs of American exceptionalism. Don't take my word for it - look at his speech on Wednesday announcing America's strategy for "degrading and defeating" Isis.

On the one hand, Obama played down the threat from Isis by noting "we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland" (even though he warned that Isis could attack in the future). His strategy was eminently reasonable and relatively restrained. America would be one of many acting in Iraq; would rely on air power and no boots on the ground; would work with regional allies and utilise a few tools in the national security toolbox other than aerial bombardment.

This looks a lot different from the wars in Iraq or the ill-fated 2009 surge in Afghanistan. It's outsourced counter-terrorism, reliance on proxy militaries in Syria and Iraq and American air power. So far so good, right?

It's the rest of Obama's speech that is more problematic, because to sell his strategy for destroying Isis he laid it on pretty thick. According to Obama, the reason for America to act in Iraq is not just because Isis might one day be a threat or because it challenges key US interests in the region or because the group is a deeply nihilistic and malignant force that merits a militarised response to its hateful actions, but rather, well, because we're America.

"American leadership is the one constant in an uncertain world," said Obama. "It is America that has the capacity and the will to mobilise the world against terrorists."

It is America that "rallied the world against Russian aggression"; "that can help contain and cure the outbreak of Ebola"; "that helped remove and destroy Syria's declared chemical weapons" and "is helping Muslim communities, not just in the fight against terrorism, but in the fight for opportunity and tolerance and a more hopeful future". That's a lot of responsibilities.

And in case you thought those recent public opinion polls that showed the American people were a bit tired of playing the role of global cop, think again. "As Americans, we welcome our responsibility to lead," said the president. "Our endless blessings bestow an enduring burden."

Moreover, America's "own safety" and its "own security" depends on its "willingness to do what it takes to defend this nation and uphold the values that we stand for". Except if upholding those values is really difficult, like in Syria over the past three years.

Pointing out this rhetorical inconsistency isn't necessarily a policy criticism. Obama's strategy for dealing with Isis and his approach to the bloody civil war in Syria have demonstrated modesty and restraint. These are underrated and underappreciated attributes; as, too, are Obama's deliberation and caution, which you'd want any American president who commands the world's largest military, several times over, to exhibit.

But if you really want the US to play a less active role in global affairs or even "lead from behind", making the claim that only America has the capacity and will to mobilise the world ... well, guess who is going to get asked to organise a posse when there's trouble? By describing America as the indispensable nation, Obama and his Oval Office predecessors have created a self-fulfilling outcome in which it's basically impossible for the US to share the responsibilities of maintaining global peace and security with anyone else. Of course, doing so also leaves the rest of the world, and in particular our close allies, off the hook. Why should they take the lead when they know the United States always will?

Perhaps there is no way around this dilemma. Every group needs a leader and why not America? After all, we certainly do benefit from a world that is more stable and peaceful; that is more democratic and prosperous and that abides by global rules and norms. In a very real sense that's the postwar world we were trying to create at the end of the second world war and, nearly 70 years later, one can say that we've largely succeeded. But in an era when the threats to America are few and far between and when, current events notwithstanding, the world is unusually safe, this would be the perfect moment for America to fob off some of its global responsibilities to others and, as Obama has often said in the past, conduct some nation-building at home.

But the practically unquestioned notion of US global responsibility and leadership makes that nearly impossible. The contradictions in Obama's approach are ones that are evident among the American people who on the one hand want the US to remain the most powerful country in the world but also want other countries to share more of our international burdens.

So perhaps Obama has little choice but to appeal to American's sense of national pride when asking them to support yet another military engagement in a nation where so much American blood has already been spilled. And that's perhaps why a less ideologically tinged, more interest-based argument won't do. After all, dropping bombs seems a bit more legitimate when it's done on behalf of values rather than interests. But to be clear, all this chest puffing comes with a price.

In 2008, when Obama was running for president he said his goal wasn't simply to end the Iraq war but to end the mind-set that got America involved in that terrible conflict in the first place. Six years later, there's a lot more work to do and it begins with Obama's bully pulpit.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Obama's great dilemma: to be or not to be the world's policeman | Michael Cohen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Iraq... America just can't quit you. For 23 years and across four presidencies, American planes have been waging war either against or on behalf of Iraqis. And if President Obama's prediction of a long-term struggle against Isis is correct, it might soon be five presidents and a quarter of a century.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Voice an opinion on the role of the United States in global policing as a world leader or as an isolationist power.