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___

违反《中华人民共和国消防法》的规定，有下列哪些行为，尚不够成犯罪的，处以十日以上十五日以下拘留，可以并处五百元以下罚款；情节较轻的，处警告或者五百元以下罚款___？[单选题]

《中华人民共和国消防法》的立法宗旨是指为了预防火灾和减少火灾危害，加强应急救援工作，保护（）安全，维护公共安全___？[单选题]

根据《中华人民共和国消防法》的规定，机关、团体、企业、事业等单位对建筑消防设施（）至少进行一次全面检测___ ？[单选题]

根据《中华人民共和国消防法》的规定，生产、储存、经营（）与居住场所设置在同一建筑物内，或者未与居住场所保持安全距离的，责令停产停业，并处五千元以上五万元以下罚款。___？[单选题]

根据《中华人民共和国消防法》的规定，违反消防安全规定进入生产、储存易燃易爆危险品场所的或违反规定使用明火作业或者在具有火灾、爆炸危险的场所（）的，处警告或五百元以下罚款；情节严重的，处五日以下拘留。___？[单选题]

根据《中华人民共和国消防法》的规定，人员密集场所使用不合格的 或者国家命令淘汰的（）消防产品的，责令限期改正；逾期不改正的，处五千元以上五万元以下罚款，并对其直接负责的主管人员和其他直接责任人元处五百元以上二千元以下罚款，情节严重的，责令停产停业___ ？[单选题]

人员密集场所发生火灾，该场所的现场工作人员不履行组织、引导在场人员（）的义务，情节严重，尚不构成犯罪的，处五日以上十日以下拘留___？[单选题]

国务院制定出台的《消防安全责任制实施办法》首次将（）确定为总体原则___？[单选题]

根据《消防安全责任制实施办法》规定，社会单位消防安全根本原则是 ___？[单选题]

根据《消防安全责任制实施办法》规定，（）是消防安全的责任主体___？[单选题]

根据《消防安全责任制实施办法》规定，（）、主要负责人或实际控制人是本单位、本场所消防安全责任人，对本单位、本场所消防安全全面负责___？[单选题]

根据《消防安全责任制实施办法》规定，消防安全重点单位应当确定（），组织实施本单位的消防安全管理工作___？[单选题]

根据《消防安全责任制实施办法》规定，因消防安全责任不落实，发生一般及以上火灾事故的，依法依规追究单位直接责任人、（）、主要负责人或实际控制人的责任___？[单选题]

造成3人以下死亡，或者10人以下受伤，或者1000万元以下直接经济损失的火灾事故为___？[单选题]

造成3人以上10人以下死亡，或者10人以上50人以下重伤，或者1000万元以上5000万元以下直接经济损失的火灾事故为___？[单选题]

造成10人以上30人以下死亡，或者50人以上100人以下重伤，或者5000万元以上1亿元以下直接经济损失的火灾事故为___？[单选题]

造成30人以上死亡，或者100人以上重伤，或者1亿元以上直接经济损失的火灾事故为___？[单选题]

根据《机关团体企业事业单位消防安全管理规定》规定，单位应将容易发生火灾、一旦发生火灾可能严重危及人身和财产安全以及对消防安全有重大影响的部位确定为（），设置明显的防火标志，实行严格管理___？[单选题]

根据《机关团体企业事业单位消防安全管理规定》规定，因特殊情况需要进行电、气焊等明火作业的，（）和人员应当按照单位的用火管理制度办理审批手续，落实现场监护人，在确认无火灾、爆炸危险后方可动火施工___？[单选题]

根据《机关团体企业事业单位消防安全管理规定》规定，机关、团体、事业单位应当至少每季度进行一次防火检查，其他单位应当至少（）进行一次防火检查___？[单选题]

根据《机关团体企业事业单位消防安全管理规定》规定,设有自动消防设施的单位，应当按照有关规定定期对其自动消防设施进行（）检查测试，并出具检测报告，存档备查___？[单选题]

根据《机关团体企业事业单位消防安全管理规定》规定，下列哪些行为属于违反了消防安全规定，单位应当责成有关人员当场改正并督促落实的。___？[单选题]

根据《机关团体企业事业单位消防安全管理规定》规定，下列哪些行为属于违反了消防安全规定，单位应当责成有关人员当场改正并督促落实的___？[单选题]

根据《机关团体企业事业单位消防安全管理规定》规定，下列哪些行为属于违反了消防安全规定，单位应当责成有关人员当场改正并督促落实的___？[单选题]

根据《机关团体企业事业单位消防安全管理规定》规定，在火灾隐患未消除之前，单位应当落实防范措施，保障消防安全。不能确保消防安全，随时可能引发火灾或者一旦发生火灾将严重危机人身安全的，应当将危险部位___？[单选题]

根据《机关团体企业事业单位消防安全管理规定》规定，单位应当通过多种形式开展经常性的消防安全教育。消防安全重点单位对每名员工应当至少（）进行一次消防安全教育___？[单选题]

根据《机关团体企业事业单位消防安全管理规定》规定，（）应当按照灭火和应急疏散预案，至少每半年进行一次演练，并结合实际，不断完善预案 ___ ？[单选题]

根据《机关团体企业事业单位消防安全管理规定》规定，单位应将消防安全工作纳入内部检查、考核评比内容，对在消防安全工作中成绩突出的部门（班组）和个人，单位应当___？[单选题]

根据《中华人民共和国消防法》的规定，举办大型群众性活动，承办人应当依法向（）申请安全许可___？[单选题]

没有（）,必须符合___？[单选题]

根据《中华人民共和国消防法》的规定，消防车、消防艇以及消防器材、装备和设施，不得用于与（）工作无关的事情___？[单选题]

根据《中华人民共和国消防法》的规定，对因参加扑救火灾或者应急救援受伤、致残或者死亡的人员，按照国家有关规定给予___ ？[单选题]

根据《中华人民共和国消防法》的规定，建设工程的（）必须符合国家工程建设消防技术标准。建设、设计、施工、工程监理等单位依法对建设工程的（）质量负责___？[单选题]

根据《中华人民共和国消防法》的规定，国务院（）规定的特殊工程，建设单位应将消防设计文件报送（）审查，（）依法对审查的结果负责___？[单选题]

根据《中华人民共和国消防法》的规定，国务院住房和城乡建设主管部门规定应当申请消防验收的建设工程竣工，（）应当向住房和城乡建设主管部门申请消防验收___？[单选题]

府（）申请消防安全检查 ___ ？[单选题]

根据《中华人民共和国消防法》的规定，不需要申请消防验收的其他建设工程，建设单位应向住房和城乡建设主管部门（），住房和城乡建设主管部门应当进行___？[单选题]

最新修订的《中华人民共和国消防法》，从（）施行 ___ ？[单选题]

根据《中华人民共和国消防法》的规定，（）应当对机关、团体、企业、事业等单位遵守消防法律、法规的情况依法进行监督检查。（）可以负责日常消防监督检查、消防宣传教育___？[单选题]

以下属于企业消防安全“四个能力”内容的是___ ？[单选题]