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 does the author say about the Jones-Klenow method?___

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 do Jones and Klenow think of the comparison between France and the U.S. in terms of real consumption per person?___

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?___

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?___

大学生的成才目标是___。

现代人才素质的灵魂是___。

___是人才素质的基础.

世界政治格局发展的必然趋势是___。

在全面发展的教育中德、智、体、美是缺一不可，统一存在的，其中处于主导地位的是___。

时代精神的内涵十分丰富，其中___居于核心地位。

民族精神是一个民族赖以生存和发展的精神支撑。中华民族在五千年的发展中所形成的伟大民族精神的核心是___。

下列名言反映中华民族是一个艰苦奋斗的民族的有___。

___是人才素质的基本内容

10。___是我们立党立国的根本指导思想

衡量大学生全面发展的一个重要标准是___

独立生活意识指___

___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。

___是人才素质的综合体现.

人们对生活在其中的世界及人与世界的关系的总的看法和根本观点就是___

人生观的核心是___

人的本质属性是___

社会主义社会人生价值标准是___

回答人为什么活着___

表明人应当怎样对待生活___

判别什么样的人生才有意义___

下列人生态度中正确的是___

下列属于正确的人生目的的是___

___认为,金钱可以主宰一切.

___ 认为，社会和他人是达到个人目的的手段。

___认为，人生的全部内容就在于满足感官的需求与快乐。

马克思对于人的本质的论断确立与___

人与自然关系的实质是___

在社会交往和公共生活中公民应该遵守的道德准则是___

社会公德最基本的要求是___

通过其规定和实施，影响人们思想，培养和提高人们法律意识，引导人们依法行为的作用是法律的___

有序的公共生活是构建和谐社会的___

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___

任何一个社会成员，无论具有何种身份、职业和地位，都必须在公共生活中遵守社会公德。这体现了社会公德具有的___特点。

影响公共生活、公共秩序、文明礼貌、清洁卫生以及其他影响社会生活的最主要行为规范是___

《公民道德建设实施纲要》明确指出，社会公德涵盖了___

主机的IPv4地址为200.200.200.201/30，拥有下列哪个IPv4地址的主机和其通信不需要经过路由器转发？___

人体结构和功能的基本单位是

下列关于解剖学标准姿势的描述，错误的是

有关方位术语内侧的叙述中，正确的是

党的十九大报告指出，经过长期努力，中国特色社会主义进入了___，这是我国发展新的历史方位。

党的十九大报告提出新时代党的建设总要求，突出___在党的建设中的重要地位。

党的十九大报告提出一个新目标，即“在本世纪中叶建成___的社会主义现代化强国”。

党的十九大报告中列举了十四条新时代坚持和发展中国特色社会主义的基本方略，第一条是：___。

党的十九大报告指出，新时代坚持和发展中国特色社会主义的基本方略指出，坚持全面从严治党，必须以___为根本遵循，把党的政治建设摆在首位。

党的十九大报告指出，把___挺在前面，着力解决人民群众反映最强烈、对党的执政基础威胁最大的突出问题。

党的十九大报告指出，___是指导党和人民实现中华民族伟大复兴的正确理论。

党的十九大报告指出，五年来，我国经济保持中高速增长，在世界主要国家中名列前茅，国内生产总值从五十四万亿元增长到八十万亿元，稳居世界___，对世界经济增长贡献率超过百分之三十。

党的十九大报告指出，新时代中国特色社会主义思想，是___最新成果，是党和人民实践经验和集体智慧的结晶，是中国特色社会主义理论体系的重要组成部分，是全党全国人民为实现中华民族伟大复兴而奋斗的行动指南，必须长期坚持并不断发展。

党的十九大报告指出，面对世界经济复苏乏力、局部冲突和动荡频发、全球性问题加剧的外部环境，面对我国经济发展进入新常态等一系列深刻变化，我们坚持___工作总基调，迎难而上，开拓进取，取得了改革开放和社会主义现代化建设的历史性成就。

党的十九大报告指出，实现“两个一百年”奋斗目标、实现中华民族伟大复兴的中国梦，不断提高人民生活水平，必须坚定不移把___作为党执政兴国的第一要务。

党的十九大报告指出，我们坚决维护国家___完整，绝不容忍国家分裂的历史悲剧重演。一切分裂祖国的活动都必将遭到全体中国人坚决反对。

党的十九大报告指出，从全面建成小康社会到基本实现现代化，再到全面建成___，是新时代中国特色社会主义发展的战略安排。

党的十九大报告指出，中国共产党一经成立，就把实现___作为党的最高理想和最终目标，义无反顾肩负起实现中华民族伟大复兴的历史使命，团结带领人民进行了艰苦卓绝的斗争，谱写了气吞山河的壮丽史诗。

党的十九大报告指出，发挥市场在资源配置中的___作用，更好发挥政府作用，推动新型工业化、信息化、城镇化、农业现代化同步发展，主动参与和推动经济全球化进程，发展更高层次的开放型经济，不断壮大我国经济实力和综合国力。

党的十九大报告指出，___是当代中国发展进步的根本制度保障。

党的十九大报告指出，___是坚持党的领导、人民当家作主、依法治国有机统一的根本政治制度安排，必须长期坚持、不断完善。

党的十九大报告指出，世界正处于大发展大变革大调整时期，___仍然是时代主题。

党的十九大报告指出，___是历史的创造者，是决定党和国家前途命运的根本力量。

党的十九大报告指出，中国特色社会主义进入新时代，意味着近代以来久经磨难的中华民族迎来了___的伟大飞跃，迎来了实现中华民族伟大复兴的光明前景。

党的十九大报告指出，___是一个国家、一个民族发展中更基本、更深沉、更持久的力量。

中国共产党第十九次全国代表大会，是在全面建成小康社会___、中国特色社会主义进入新时代的关键时期召开的一次十分重要的大会。

党的十九大报告指出，___是两岸关系的政治基础。

党的十九大报告指出，___是社会主义民主政治的本质特征。

党的十九大报告指出，全党同志一定要永远与人民___，永远把人民对美好生活的向往作为奋斗目标，以永不懈怠的精神状态和一往无前的奋斗姿态，继续朝着实现中华民族伟大复兴的宏伟目标奋勇前进。

党的十九大报告指出，必须统筹国内国际两个大局，始终不渝走和平发展道路、奉行___的开放战略。

党的十九大报告指出，必须坚定不移贯彻___的发展理念。

党的十九大报告指出，___是最大的民生。

党的十九大报告指出，要建设___劳动者大军，弘扬劳模精神和工匠精神，营造劳动光荣的社会风尚和精益求精的敬业风气。

党的十九大报告指出，明确中国特色社会主义最本质的特征是___。

党的十九大报告呼吁，各国人民同心协力，构建___，建设持久和平、普遍安全、共同繁荣、开放包容、清洁美丽的世界。

党的十九大报告指出，___是实现社会主义现代化、创造人民美好生活的必由之路。

党的十九大报告指出，___是当代中国精神的集中体现，凝结着全体人民共同的价值追求。

党的十九大报告指出，五年来，我们统筹推进___总体布局、协调推进( )战略布局，“十二五”规划胜利完成，“十三五”规划顺利实施，党和国家事业全面开创新局面。

党的十九大报告指出，脱贫攻坚战取得决定性进展，___贫困人口稳定脱贫，贫困发生率从百分之十点二下降到百分之四以下。

党的十九大报告指出，___是中国特色社会主义的本质要求和重要保障。