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___

C级特殊物品审批单有效期为_____。

《国境口岸卫生许可管理办法》不适用于_____。

国境口岸卫生许可申请材料经审查合格，确有必要需现场审查的，受理的海关应当在____内成立由2名以上经培训合格的海关卫生监督工作人员组成的卫生许可现场审查组。

在对集中空调系统卫生监督过程中，样本抽样比例不应少于空气处理机组对应的风管系统总数量的_____。

在游泳池水卫生状况监测中，在泳池水面下____处采集水样。

水质常规指标中PH值限值是_______。

在营业面积1500平方米的候船厅中监测空气卫生状况，应布点____。

在采集水样做微生物检测时向采样瓶（袋）中加入硫代硫酸钠是为了_____。

国际航行船舶在进行鼠患检查中发现新鲜鼠粪二处，数量28粒，有不明显鼠迹，判定为_____。

《卫生许可证》有效期为_____。

食品生产经营单位需要延续《卫生许可证》有效期的，应当在《卫生许可证》期满前_____内向主管海关提出申请。

海关对申请人提出的卫生许可申请，申请材料不齐全或者不符合法定形式的，应当当场或者自收到申请材料之日起_____内一次性告知申请人需要补正的全部内容。

根据《航空食品卫生规范》的要求，应对航空配餐按每批次进行留样，留样时间至少_____。

签发《船舶免予卫生控制措施证书/船舶卫生控制措施证书》时，对于不适用的区域用_____注明。

某涉外星级酒店，内有咖啡馆、健身房、游泳池、中餐厅、西餐厅、商店各一个，该酒店应该办理_____卫生许可证。

从事国境口岸食品生产、食品销售、餐饮服务的，申请卫生许可时，不必提供_____。

生活饮用水水质常规指标中菌落总数限值是_____。

航空配餐的冷藏食品验收标准规定食品表面温度应不高于____。

国境口岸卫生许可证的现场审查时间不得超过_____。

航空器供水余氯应为_____mg/L。

已装机的航空冷链食品，表面温度超过15℃，且航班延误超过_____应撤回。

食品贮存需隔墙离地，需至少保持_____距离。

国境口岸卫生许可审批时限_____。

对口岸饮用水供应单位的监督频次每_____月不少于1次。

出厂水中游离余氯的含量标准为______。

食品加工经营场所需远离圈养、宰杀活的禽畜类动物的区域______以上。

航空食品冷藏温度应控制在______。

食品经营者索证索票记录和凭证保存期限不得少于产品保质期满后______；没有明确保质期的，保存期限不得少于______。

下列关于口岸食品销售单位开展口岸食品卫生监督量化分级管理的表述，错误的是________。

对涂改、出租、出借、非法转让、倒卖有效卫生许可证的，直接吊销卫生许可证，负责的主管人员自处罚决定作出之日起______内不得从事食品生产、食品流通、餐饮服务、饮用水供应经营单位的管理工作。

在国境口岸范围内开展临时性生产经营活动的应当申请办理临时卫生许可，临时卫生许可证有效期不超过______。

航空配餐从成品冷库出库到旅客食用的时间限制小于______的航空配餐的运输工具可不具备温控设备。

第一质量控制期是指______。

检疫处理单位应当按照检疫处理方案安排具有相应资质的检疫处理人员实施检疫处理，现场处理人员不得少于_______，并建立突发事件应急处置预案。

对一般风险的检疫处理业务，海关应每月至少实施__________监管。

卫生处理工作中发生一般事故，应在_______内向主管部门报告。

入出境航空器消毒中，__________是不适合采用消毒剂溶液擦拭消毒法的物品。

入出境列车在未发生传染病的正常情况下，经常采用________措施，杀灭、减少生活环境致病菌的数量，防止传染病的发生与传播。

集装箱熏蒸操作散毒环节，检测集装箱内熏蒸气体残留，达到_________浓度后，方可后续作业。

来自受染地区的集装箱和装载废旧物品的集装箱，应在投药_________后及散毒前进行浓度检测，根据相关标准确定熏蒸的有效性。