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___

为调整和规范人类社会生活三大领域，相应分别形成了___

试验列车自动制动机制动的手信号昼间为用检查锤高举头上。

试验列车自动制动机缓解的手信号夜间为白色灯光在下部左右小动。

试验列车自动制动机结束的手信号昼间用检查锤作圆形转动。

升弓手信号昼间的显示为：左臂垂直高举，右臂前伸并上下重复摇动。

道岔表示器昼间无显示表示道岔位置开通侧向。

道岔表示器昼间为中央划有一条鱼尾形黑线的黄色鱼尾形牌表示道岔位置开通直向。

脱轨表示器显示为带白边的红色长方牌及红色灯光时，表示线路在遮断状态。

进路表示器在其主体信号机开放时点亮，用于区别进路开通方向或双线区段反方向发车，不能独立构成信号显示。

不许发车的线路，所属该线路的发车线路表示器不能点亮。

发车表示器显示一个白色灯光，表示车站人员准许发车。

调车表示器向调车区方向显示一个白色灯光，准许机车车辆自调车区向牵出线运行。

车挡表示器设置在线路终端的车挡上，昼间一个红色方牌；夜间显示一个红色灯光。

四显示机车信号接通标属于线路标志。

在限鸣区域内，司机见司机鸣笛标应开启灯显示警设备，除遇危及行车安全等情况外，限制鸣笛。

减速地点标的正面表示列车应按规定限速通过地段的始点，背面表示列车应按规定限速通过地段的终点。

听觉信号，长声为3s，短声为1s，音响间隔为2s。

机车车辆前进时应鸣示起动注意信号。

列车在接近道口、桥梁或隧道时应鸣笛一长声。

机车的鸣笛鸣示方式中，召集信号的鸣示方式为三长声，表示要求防护人员撤回。

当本务机车要求补机惰力推进或要求补机断开主断路器时，应鸣示一长二短声的惰行信号。

移动机车前，司机应确认相关人员处于安全处所，防溜撤除，注意邻线机车、车辆的移动情况。

多机重联时，连挂司机负责复检机车与第一位车辆的车钩、软管连结和折角塞门状态。

机车挂车后，正确输入机车综合无线通信设备、LKJ有关数据。

制动主管达到定压后，司机按规定及检车人员的要求进行列车制动机试验，装有防折关装置的机车无需确认制动主管贯通情况。

列车自动制动机进行简略试验时，司机需对制动主管的漏泄量进行检查，而感度试验时司机不对制动主管的漏泄量进行检查。

列车制动机试验时， CCBⅡ、法维莱等微机控制的制动机，注意观察显示屏上充风流量信息。

装有列尾装置的列车进行制动机试验时，司机应对列尾风压进行查询。

起动列车前，必须二人及以上确认行车凭证、发车信号显示正确，准确呼唤应答，执行车机联控，鸣笛起动列车。

列车起动时，司机应检查制动机手柄是否在正常位置及各仪表的显示状态，做到起车稳、加速快、防止空转。

列车运行中，当列尾装置主机发出电池欠压报警、通信中断等异常情况时，司机应及时通知就近车站值班员或列车调度员，旅客列车应同时通知车辆乘务员。

中间站停车，司机必须对机车主要部件进行检查。

机车乘务员必须坚守岗位，不得擅自离开机车。

根据《铁路交通事故调查处理规则》,关闭折角塞门发出列车，至少构成一般D类事故。

根据《铁路交通事故调查处理规则》,因断钩导致列车分离事故，断口为新痕时定机务单位责任（司机未违反操作规程的除外）。

根据《铁路交通事故调查处理规则》, “擅自开车”系指司机未得到车站发车人员的发车信号而开车。

运输、牵引供电、电务、工务、车辆、通信、公安等有关人员，凭登乘机车证可登乘机车。

回送机车乘务员须每天向本段汇报回送情况，机务段应掌握本段回送机车情况，发现机车滞留，协调相关部门及时处理。

铁路机车车辆驾驶人员执业时，可不携带驾驶证。

铁路机车车辆驾驶证有效期为６年。

在高速铁路运行区段，CTC与GSM-R数字移动通信系统结合，实现调度命令、接车进路预告信息、调车作业通知单等向司机的传送。