【单选题】
Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago?
In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income.
While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time.
The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005.
In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare.
Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%.
The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly.
Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates.
What is an advantage of the Jones-Klenow method?___
A. It can accurately pinpoint a country’s current economic problems.
B. It can help to raise people’s awareness of their economic well-being.
C. It can diagnose the causes of a country’s slowing pace of economic improvement.
D. It can compare a country’s economic conditions between different periods of time.
查看试卷，进入试卷练习
微信扫一扫，开始刷题
答案
D
解析
暂无解析
相关试题
【单选题】
Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago?
In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income.
While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time.
The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005.
In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare.
Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%.
The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly.
Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates.
What can we infer from the passage about American people’s economic well-being?___
A. It is much better than that of their European counterparts.
B. It has been on the decline ever since the turn of the century.
C. It has not improved as much as reported by the Census Bureau.
D. It has not been accurately assessed and reported since mid-2000s.
【单选题】
大学生的成才目标是___。
A. 培养德智体美全面发展的人才
B. 培养德智体美全面发展的社会主义建设者
C. 培养德智体美全面发展的社会主义建设者和接班人
D. 培养专业化、创新化的人才
【单选题】
___作为社会主义核心价值体系的精髓，解决的是应当具备什么样的精神状态和精神风貌的问题。
A. 马克思主义的指导地位
B. 中国特色社会主义的共同理想
C. 民族精神和时代精神
D. 社会主义荣辱观
【单选题】
一行人在过路口时迎面遇到红灯，看到近处没有车辆便径直通过。他这样做是___
A. 节省时间之举
B. 聪明灵活之举
C. 可供学习之举
D. 不遵守交通规则，违反社会公德之举
【单选题】
《公民道德建设实施纲要》明确指出，社会公德涵盖了___
A. 人与人之间的关系
B. 人与社会之间的关系
C. 人与自然之间的关系
D. 人与人、人与社会、人与自然之间的关系
【单选题】
为调整和规范人类社会生活三大领域，相应分别形成了___
A. 生活道德、职业道德、家庭道德
B. 生活道德、职业道德、社会公德
C. 社会公德、生活道德、职业道德
D. 社会公德、职业道德、家庭道德
推荐试题
【单选题】
道德具有___等特点。〔132000000〕
A. 规范性、多层次性、稳定性和社会性
B. 前瞻性、多层次性、稳定性和社会性
C. 规范性、多层次性、强制性和社会性
D. 规范性、普遍性、稳定性和社会性
【单选题】
《公民道德建设实施纲要》提出的公民应遵守的基本道德规范是___〔123000000〕
A. 爱国守法、文明礼貌、团结友善、勤俭自强、敬业奉献
B. 爱国守法、明礼诚信、团结友善、勤俭自强、敬业奉献
C. 尊纪守法、明礼诚信、团结友善、勤俭自强、敬业奉献
D. 爱国守法、明礼诚信、尊老爱幼、勤俭自强、敬业奉献
【单选题】
职业在社会生活中，主要体现出___三方面要素。〔122000000〕
A. 职业行为、职业权利、职业利益
B. 职业职责、职业道德、职业利益
C. 职业职责、职业权利、职业内容
D. 职业职责、职业权利、职业利益
【单选题】
职业道德不仅是从业人员在职业活动中的行为标准和要求，而且是本行业对社会所承担的___和义务。〔122000000〕
A. 道德责任
B. 产品质量
C. 社会责任
D. 服务责任
【单选题】
铁路职工职业道德教育的重要内容有___。〔123000000〕
A. 安全正点、尊老爱幼、优质服务
B. 安全正点、尊客爱货、清正廉洁
C. 安全正点、尊客爱货、优质服务
D. 安全正点、办事公道、优质服务
【单选题】
和谐铁路建设目标是“运能充足、装备先进___内部和谐”。〔123000000〕
A. 运输安全、管理科学、节能环保、服务优质
B. 安全可靠、队伍稳定、节能环保、服务优质
C. 安全可靠、管理科学、节能环保、增运增收
D. 安全可靠、管理科学、节能环保、服务优质
【单选题】
铁路运输应为旅客、货主提供___三种层次的服务。〔132000000〕
A. 标准服务、延深服务、超值服务
B. 一般性服务、人性化服务、超值服务
C. 标准服务、人性化服务、超值服务
D. 标准服务、人性化服务、特定服务
【单选题】
铁路运输生产既要职工按照分工和要求，尽职尽责地做好本职工作，又要在___，互相帮助，主动配合，密切配合。〔122000000〕
A. 单位领导下
B. 统一领导下
C. 部门领导下
D. 系统领导下
【单选题】
在社会主义初级阶段，艰苦奋斗、勇于奉献既是培养“四有”职工队伍的内在要求，又是社会主义___建设的重要内容。〔112000000〕
A. 精神文明
B. 物质文明
C. 社会文化
D. 和谐社会
