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 think of the 2015 report by the Census Bureau?___

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___

根据施工现场环境保护的要求，凡在人口稠密区进行强噪声作业时，须严格控制作业时间。一般情况下，停止强噪声作业的时间是___。

[多选题]球墨铸铁管能广泛使用，其原因是___。

[多选题]地铁车站按照车站布线高程和地面的关系，分为___

[多选题]在一个基坑内沉入多根桩时，下列有关打桩顺序的说法中，正确的有___。

[多选题]锚具.夹具和连接器进场时，除应按出厂合格证和质量证明书核查其锚固性能类别.型号.规格及数量外，还应按规定进行___。

[多选题]小导管注浆宜采用___

[多选题]填方用土一般需进行___等试验，并经监理工程师批准后方可使用。

[多选题]地下车站模板工程与建筑工程一般项目相同。需要注意的是模板要有利于___

[多选题]盾构掘进中遇有下列情况之一时，应停止掘进，分析原因并采取措施：___。

[多选题]城市桥梁工程中，承台基坑开挖要做好基坑排水设施，可采用___等方法。

[多选题]与铁路工程相比，城市轨道交通轨道工程具有以下特点：___

影响道路基层水泥稳定土强度的主要因素有___。

混凝土板在温度变化影响下会产生胀缩，以下表述正确的是___。

经常处于___路段的路基应设垫层。

沥青混凝土面层必须在冬期施工时，应采取___措施。

城镇道路基层工程中，___是影响路面使用性能和使用寿命的最关键因素。

《城镇道路工程施工与质量验收规范》CJJ1-2008中强制性条文规定：沥青混合料面层不得在___时施工。

以下关于石灰稳定土基层运输与摊铺施工技术要点正确的是___。

例-多选题】水泥稳定碎石基层具有 ___的优点。

关于石灰稳定土类基层，说法正确的是___。

水泥稳定土与石灰稳定土相比具有许多特点，以下说法正确的是___。

某厂(甲方)与某公路工程公司(乙方)订立了厂区内道路施工合同，同时与某降水公司订立了工程降水合同。甲、乙双方合同规定：采用单价合同，每一分项工程的实际工程量增加(或减少)超过招标文件中工程量的10%以上时调整单价;工作B、E、G作业使用的主导施工机械一台(乙方自备)，台班费为400元/台班，其中台班折旧费为50元/台班。施工网络计划如图6-1所示。 甲、乙双方合同约定8月15日开工。工程施工中发生如下事件： 1.降水方案错误，致使工作D推迟2天，乙方人员配合用工5个工日，窝工6个工日。 2.8月21日至22日，场外停电，停工2天，造成人员窝工16个工日。 3.因设计变更，工作E工程量由招标文件中的300m3增至350m3，超过了10%;合同中该工作的综合单价为55元/m3，经协商调整后综合单价为50元/m3。 4.为保证施工质量，乙方在施工中将工作B原设计尺寸扩大，增加工程量15m3，该工作综合单价为78元/m3。 5.在工作D、E均完成后，甲方指令增加一项临时工作K，经核准，完成该工作需要i天时间，机械I台班，人工10个工日。 问题 (1).上述哪些事件乙方可以提出索赔要求?哪些事件不能提出索赔要求?说明其原因。 (2).每项事件工期索赔各是多少?总工期索赔多少天? (3).工作E结算价应为多少? (4).假设人工工日单价为25元/工日，合同规定窝工人工费补偿标准为12元/工日，因增加用工所需管理费为增加人工费的20%。工作K的综合取费为人工费的80%。试计算除事件3外合理的费用索赔总额。

某市修建一道路工程。经招标选择A公司负责承建。A公司因焊工不足，将管道焊接施工分包给B公司。施工后，该管线出现质量事故，依据事故调查和经有资质单位检测后出具的报告，表明有一个焊口被撕裂，判断为焊接质量不合格。 问题： (1)从质量事故中分析A公司和B公司在质量控制上的责任。 (2)质量事故调查都应包括哪些内容?

背景： 某地铁区间隧道采用盾构法施工，盾构直径6.5m，盾构区间长1328m，隧道平均覆土11.5m。项目部采取了以下职业健康安全管理措施：一是对参加盾构施工的机械工和辅助生产工人进行安全技术知识的教育;二是在隧道内安装了轴流式通风机和照明设施;三是项目部专职安全员主持安全生产例会和负责定期安全检查。 依据盾构施工的质量保证计划，项目部将管片拼装工序作为特殊过程加以控制，由质量员编制拼装作业指导书，经质量负责人审批后执行。 问题： (1)安全措施二是否满足职业健康要求?如不满足，说明正确做法。 (2)安全措施三是否符合安全生产管理规定?说明正确的检查方式和检查内容。 (3)特殊过程的质量控制是否符合要求?如不符合，给出正确做法。

背景： A市政公司中标地铁区间隧道工程标段，采用盾构法施工。为满足建设方的工期要求，将双线盾构中的右线分包给了具有专业资质的B公司，分包合同约定：工作井土建施工由A公司负责，其余均由B公司负责，A公司配合。在吊装盾构机主体时，出现地面沉陷致使汽车吊向井壁外侧倾翻;侥幸的是无人伤亡，只是盾构机外壳有些撞伤，经鉴定可以修复并不影响施工。但吊车侧部严重变形损坏。事故调查报告表明，现场沉陷地面未进行承载力试验。 问题： (1)分析本次事故的主要原因，给出正确做法。 (2)事故造成的损失应由哪方来承担? (3)结合案例指出工程分包管理应注意事项。

[单选题]砖基础砌筑时，组砌方法宜为___。

[单选题]在确定柱控制截面最不利内力时，下列哪种说法是不对的：___

[单选题]对于角焊缝，下列哪种说法是对的：___

[单选题]钢结构涂刷防火涂料，厚型防火涂料每次涂刷厚度宜控制在___m

[单选题]质量管理八项原则强调以___为关注的焦点。

[单选题]危险源识别的方法有很多，其中采用背对背的方式对专家进行调查，避免了集体讨论的从众性倾向的方式属于___。

[单选题]以下关于质量控制的说法正确的是___。

[单选题]焊接工字形等截面简支梁，在何种情况下，整体稳定系数最高?___

[单选题]钢筋混凝土轴心受拉构件中,钢筋的级别及配筋率一定时,为减少裂缝的平均宽度,应尽量采用___

[单选题]《混凝土结构设计规范》规定，预应力混凝土构件的混凝土强度等级不应低于___

[单选题]其他条件相同时，预应力混凝土构件的延性比普通混凝土构件的延性___

[单选题]在雨、雪、风力___级以上(含)天气不得进行露天焊接工作。

[单选题]《回弹法检测混凝土抗压强度技术规程》JGJ/T23-2011中指的普通混凝土系主要由水泥、砂、石、外加剂、掺合料和水配置的密度为___Kg/m³的混凝土。

[单选题]公称直径小于100mm的芯样试件，每个试件内最多允许()根直径小于___mm的钢筋。

[单选题]芯样试件的实际高径比(H/d)小于要求高径比的()或大于___，测试数据无效。