Question Description
Answer the following question based on the information given below.The old idea of recasting the welfare state by instituting an unconditional universal basic income has lately been capturing imaginations across the political spectrum. On the left, it is regarded as a simple and potentially comprehensive antidote to poverty. On the right, it is viewed as a means to demolish complex welfare bureaucracies while recognizing the need for some social transfer obligations in a way that doesn’t weaken incentives significantly. It also provides some assurance for the dreaded future when robots may replace workers in many sectors.The main drawback, according to critics, is that a basic income would weaken the motivation to work, particularly among the poor. Given that the value of work extends beyond income, the logic goes, this could pose a serious problem. European social democrats, for example, worry that a basic income could undermine the worker solidarity that underpins current social-insurance programs. But, in developing countries, workers in the dominant informal sector are already excluded from social-insurance programs. And no feasible basic income would be large enough, at least for now, to enable people simply to leave work behind.In fact, among the poorest groups, basic incomes would enhance the dignity- and solidarity-enhancing effects of work, by easing some of the pressure on people - particularly women - who are now vastly overworked. Instead of constantly fearing for their livelihoods, self-employed people, such as small-scale producers and vendors, could engage in more strategic decision-making, taking advantage of their enhanced bargaining power against traders, middlemen, creditors, and landlords.The final argument against basic income is that the poor will use the money to fund personally or socially detrimental activities, such as gambling and alcohol consumption. But experiences with direct cash transfers in a range of countries, including Ecuador, India, Mexico, and Uganda, have not provided much evidence of such misuse; in general, the cash is spent on worthwhile goods and services.Proposals for a universal basic income, fancied by utopian socialists and libertarians, may be premature in the advanced countries. Butsuch schemes should not be dismissed in the developing world, where conditions are such that they could offer an affordable alternative to administratively unwieldy and ineffective welfare programs. Basic incomes are no panacea; but for overworked developing-country citizens living in extreme poverty, they would certainly be a relief.Q.“And no feasible basic income would be large enough, at least for now, to enable people simply to leave work behind” implies that:a)Any amount of basic income is not sufficient to improve the conditions of poorb)At its nascent stage, the universal basic income scheme will not lead to undervaluation of work by poorc)There is a need for a basic income that will encourage poor to leave workd)People not satisfied with their work can rely on basicincome amount for survivalCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2025 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Answer the following question based on the information given below.The old idea of recasting the welfare state by instituting an unconditional universal basic income has lately been capturing imaginations across the political spectrum. On the left, it is regarded as a simple and potentially comprehensive antidote to poverty. On the right, it is viewed as a means to demolish complex welfare bureaucracies while recognizing the need for some social transfer obligations in a way that doesn’t weaken incentives significantly. It also provides some assurance for the dreaded future when robots may replace workers in many sectors.The main drawback, according to critics, is that a basic income would weaken the motivation to work, particularly among the poor. Given that the value of work extends beyond income, the logic goes, this could pose a serious problem. European social democrats, for example, worry that a basic income could undermine the worker solidarity that underpins current social-insurance programs. But, in developing countries, workers in the dominant informal sector are already excluded from social-insurance programs. And no feasible basic income would be large enough, at least for now, to enable people simply to leave work behind.In fact, among the poorest groups, basic incomes would enhance the dignity- and solidarity-enhancing effects of work, by easing some of the pressure on people - particularly women - who are now vastly overworked. Instead of constantly fearing for their livelihoods, self-employed people, such as small-scale producers and vendors, could engage in more strategic decision-making, taking advantage of their enhanced bargaining power against traders, middlemen, creditors, and landlords.The final argument against basic income is that the poor will use the money to fund personally or socially detrimental activities, such as gambling and alcohol consumption. But experiences with direct cash transfers in a range of countries, including Ecuador, India, Mexico, and Uganda, have not provided much evidence of such misuse; in general, the cash is spent on worthwhile goods and services.Proposals for a universal basic income, fancied by utopian socialists and libertarians, may be premature in the advanced countries. Butsuch schemes should not be dismissed in the developing world, where conditions are such that they could offer an affordable alternative to administratively unwieldy and ineffective welfare programs. Basic incomes are no panacea; but for overworked developing-country citizens living in extreme poverty, they would certainly be a relief.Q.“And no feasible basic income would be large enough, at least for now, to enable people simply to leave work behind” implies that:a)Any amount of basic income is not sufficient to improve the conditions of poorb)At its nascent stage, the universal basic income scheme will not lead to undervaluation of work by poorc)There is a need for a basic income that will encourage poor to leave workd)People not satisfied with their work can rely on basicincome amount for survivalCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Answer the following question based on the information given below.The old idea of recasting the welfare state by instituting an unconditional universal basic income has lately been capturing imaginations across the political spectrum. On the left, it is regarded as a simple and potentially comprehensive antidote to poverty. On the right, it is viewed as a means to demolish complex welfare bureaucracies while recognizing the need for some social transfer obligations in a way that doesn’t weaken incentives significantly. It also provides some assurance for the dreaded future when robots may replace workers in many sectors.The main drawback, according to critics, is that a basic income would weaken the motivation to work, particularly among the poor. Given that the value of work extends beyond income, the logic goes, this could pose a serious problem. European social democrats, for example, worry that a basic income could undermine the worker solidarity that underpins current social-insurance programs. But, in developing countries, workers in the dominant informal sector are already excluded from social-insurance programs. And no feasible basic income would be large enough, at least for now, to enable people simply to leave work behind.In fact, among the poorest groups, basic incomes would enhance the dignity- and solidarity-enhancing effects of work, by easing some of the pressure on people - particularly women - who are now vastly overworked. Instead of constantly fearing for their livelihoods, self-employed people, such as small-scale producers and vendors, could engage in more strategic decision-making, taking advantage of their enhanced bargaining power against traders, middlemen, creditors, and landlords.The final argument against basic income is that the poor will use the money to fund personally or socially detrimental activities, such as gambling and alcohol consumption. But experiences with direct cash transfers in a range of countries, including Ecuador, India, Mexico, and Uganda, have not provided much evidence of such misuse; in general, the cash is spent on worthwhile goods and services.Proposals for a universal basic income, fancied by utopian socialists and libertarians, may be premature in the advanced countries. Butsuch schemes should not be dismissed in the developing world, where conditions are such that they could offer an affordable alternative to administratively unwieldy and ineffective welfare programs. Basic incomes are no panacea; but for overworked developing-country citizens living in extreme poverty, they would certainly be a relief.Q.“And no feasible basic income would be large enough, at least for now, to enable people simply to leave work behind” implies that:a)Any amount of basic income is not sufficient to improve the conditions of poorb)At its nascent stage, the universal basic income scheme will not lead to undervaluation of work by poorc)There is a need for a basic income that will encourage poor to leave workd)People not satisfied with their work can rely on basicincome amount for survivalCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Answer the following question based on the information given below.The old idea of recasting the welfare state by instituting an unconditional universal basic income has lately been capturing imaginations across the political spectrum. On the left, it is regarded as a simple and potentially comprehensive antidote to poverty. On the right, it is viewed as a means to demolish complex welfare bureaucracies while recognizing the need for some social transfer obligations in a way that doesn’t weaken incentives significantly. It also provides some assurance for the dreaded future when robots may replace workers in many sectors.The main drawback, according to critics, is that a basic income would weaken the motivation to work, particularly among the poor. Given that the value of work extends beyond income, the logic goes, this could pose a serious problem. European social democrats, for example, worry that a basic income could undermine the worker solidarity that underpins current social-insurance programs. But, in developing countries, workers in the dominant informal sector are already excluded from social-insurance programs. And no feasible basic income would be large enough, at least for now, to enable people simply to leave work behind.In fact, among the poorest groups, basic incomes would enhance the dignity- and solidarity-enhancing effects of work, by easing some of the pressure on people - particularly women - who are now vastly overworked. Instead of constantly fearing for their livelihoods, self-employed people, such as small-scale producers and vendors, could engage in more strategic decision-making, taking advantage of their enhanced bargaining power against traders, middlemen, creditors, and landlords.The final argument against basic income is that the poor will use the money to fund personally or socially detrimental activities, such as gambling and alcohol consumption. But experiences with direct cash transfers in a range of countries, including Ecuador, India, Mexico, and Uganda, have not provided much evidence of such misuse; in general, the cash is spent on worthwhile goods and services.Proposals for a universal basic income, fancied by utopian socialists and libertarians, may be premature in the advanced countries. Butsuch schemes should not be dismissed in the developing world, where conditions are such that they could offer an affordable alternative to administratively unwieldy and ineffective welfare programs. Basic incomes are no panacea; but for overworked developing-country citizens living in extreme poverty, they would certainly be a relief.Q.“And no feasible basic income would be large enough, at least for now, to enable people simply to leave work behind” implies that:a)Any amount of basic income is not sufficient to improve the conditions of poorb)At its nascent stage, the universal basic income scheme will not lead to undervaluation of work by poorc)There is a need for a basic income that will encourage poor to leave workd)People not satisfied with their work can rely on basicincome amount for survivalCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Answer the following question based on the information given below.The old idea of recasting the welfare state by instituting an unconditional universal basic income has lately been capturing imaginations across the political spectrum. On the left, it is regarded as a simple and potentially comprehensive antidote to poverty. On the right, it is viewed as a means to demolish complex welfare bureaucracies while recognizing the need for some social transfer obligations in a way that doesn’t weaken incentives significantly. It also provides some assurance for the dreaded future when robots may replace workers in many sectors.The main drawback, according to critics, is that a basic income would weaken the motivation to work, particularly among the poor. Given that the value of work extends beyond income, the logic goes, this could pose a serious problem. European social democrats, for example, worry that a basic income could undermine the worker solidarity that underpins current social-insurance programs. But, in developing countries, workers in the dominant informal sector are already excluded from social-insurance programs. And no feasible basic income would be large enough, at least for now, to enable people simply to leave work behind.In fact, among the poorest groups, basic incomes would enhance the dignity- and solidarity-enhancing effects of work, by easing some of the pressure on people - particularly women - who are now vastly overworked. Instead of constantly fearing for their livelihoods, self-employed people, such as small-scale producers and vendors, could engage in more strategic decision-making, taking advantage of their enhanced bargaining power against traders, middlemen, creditors, and landlords.The final argument against basic income is that the poor will use the money to fund personally or socially detrimental activities, such as gambling and alcohol consumption. But experiences with direct cash transfers in a range of countries, including Ecuador, India, Mexico, and Uganda, have not provided much evidence of such misuse; in general, the cash is spent on worthwhile goods and services.Proposals for a universal basic income, fancied by utopian socialists and libertarians, may be premature in the advanced countries. Butsuch schemes should not be dismissed in the developing world, where conditions are such that they could offer an affordable alternative to administratively unwieldy and ineffective welfare programs. Basic incomes are no panacea; but for overworked developing-country citizens living in extreme poverty, they would certainly be a relief.Q.“And no feasible basic income would be large enough, at least for now, to enable people simply to leave work behind” implies that:a)Any amount of basic income is not sufficient to improve the conditions of poorb)At its nascent stage, the universal basic income scheme will not lead to undervaluation of work by poorc)There is a need for a basic income that will encourage poor to leave workd)People not satisfied with their work can rely on basicincome amount for survivalCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Answer the following question based on the information given below.The old idea of recasting the welfare state by instituting an unconditional universal basic income has lately been capturing imaginations across the political spectrum. On the left, it is regarded as a simple and potentially comprehensive antidote to poverty. On the right, it is viewed as a means to demolish complex welfare bureaucracies while recognizing the need for some social transfer obligations in a way that doesn’t weaken incentives significantly. It also provides some assurance for the dreaded future when robots may replace workers in many sectors.The main drawback, according to critics, is that a basic income would weaken the motivation to work, particularly among the poor. Given that the value of work extends beyond income, the logic goes, this could pose a serious problem. European social democrats, for example, worry that a basic income could undermine the worker solidarity that underpins current social-insurance programs. But, in developing countries, workers in the dominant informal sector are already excluded from social-insurance programs. And no feasible basic income would be large enough, at least for now, to enable people simply to leave work behind.In fact, among the poorest groups, basic incomes would enhance the dignity- and solidarity-enhancing effects of work, by easing some of the pressure on people - particularly women - who are now vastly overworked. Instead of constantly fearing for their livelihoods, self-employed people, such as small-scale producers and vendors, could engage in more strategic decision-making, taking advantage of their enhanced bargaining power against traders, middlemen, creditors, and landlords.The final argument against basic income is that the poor will use the money to fund personally or socially detrimental activities, such as gambling and alcohol consumption. But experiences with direct cash transfers in a range of countries, including Ecuador, India, Mexico, and Uganda, have not provided much evidence of such misuse; in general, the cash is spent on worthwhile goods and services.Proposals for a universal basic income, fancied by utopian socialists and libertarians, may be premature in the advanced countries. Butsuch schemes should not be dismissed in the developing world, where conditions are such that they could offer an affordable alternative to administratively unwieldy and ineffective welfare programs. Basic incomes are no panacea; but for overworked developing-country citizens living in extreme poverty, they would certainly be a relief.Q.“And no feasible basic income would be large enough, at least for now, to enable people simply to leave work behind” implies that:a)Any amount of basic income is not sufficient to improve the conditions of poorb)At its nascent stage, the universal basic income scheme will not lead to undervaluation of work by poorc)There is a need for a basic income that will encourage poor to leave workd)People not satisfied with their work can rely on basicincome amount for survivalCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Answer the following question based on the information given below.The old idea of recasting the welfare state by instituting an unconditional universal basic income has lately been capturing imaginations across the political spectrum. On the left, it is regarded as a simple and potentially comprehensive antidote to poverty. On the right, it is viewed as a means to demolish complex welfare bureaucracies while recognizing the need for some social transfer obligations in a way that doesn’t weaken incentives significantly. It also provides some assurance for the dreaded future when robots may replace workers in many sectors.The main drawback, according to critics, is that a basic income would weaken the motivation to work, particularly among the poor. Given that the value of work extends beyond income, the logic goes, this could pose a serious problem. European social democrats, for example, worry that a basic income could undermine the worker solidarity that underpins current social-insurance programs. But, in developing countries, workers in the dominant informal sector are already excluded from social-insurance programs. And no feasible basic income would be large enough, at least for now, to enable people simply to leave work behind.In fact, among the poorest groups, basic incomes would enhance the dignity- and solidarity-enhancing effects of work, by easing some of the pressure on people - particularly women - who are now vastly overworked. Instead of constantly fearing for their livelihoods, self-employed people, such as small-scale producers and vendors, could engage in more strategic decision-making, taking advantage of their enhanced bargaining power against traders, middlemen, creditors, and landlords.The final argument against basic income is that the poor will use the money to fund personally or socially detrimental activities, such as gambling and alcohol consumption. But experiences with direct cash transfers in a range of countries, including Ecuador, India, Mexico, and Uganda, have not provided much evidence of such misuse; in general, the cash is spent on worthwhile goods and services.Proposals for a universal basic income, fancied by utopian socialists and libertarians, may be premature in the advanced countries. Butsuch schemes should not be dismissed in the developing world, where conditions are such that they could offer an affordable alternative to administratively unwieldy and ineffective welfare programs. Basic incomes are no panacea; but for overworked developing-country citizens living in extreme poverty, they would certainly be a relief.Q.“And no feasible basic income would be large enough, at least for now, to enable people simply to leave work behind” implies that:a)Any amount of basic income is not sufficient to improve the conditions of poorb)At its nascent stage, the universal basic income scheme will not lead to undervaluation of work by poorc)There is a need for a basic income that will encourage poor to leave workd)People not satisfied with their work can rely on basicincome amount for survivalCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Answer the following question based on the information given below.The old idea of recasting the welfare state by instituting an unconditional universal basic income has lately been capturing imaginations across the political spectrum. On the left, it is regarded as a simple and potentially comprehensive antidote to poverty. On the right, it is viewed as a means to demolish complex welfare bureaucracies while recognizing the need for some social transfer obligations in a way that doesn’t weaken incentives significantly. It also provides some assurance for the dreaded future when robots may replace workers in many sectors.The main drawback, according to critics, is that a basic income would weaken the motivation to work, particularly among the poor. Given that the value of work extends beyond income, the logic goes, this could pose a serious problem. European social democrats, for example, worry that a basic income could undermine the worker solidarity that underpins current social-insurance programs. But, in developing countries, workers in the dominant informal sector are already excluded from social-insurance programs. And no feasible basic income would be large enough, at least for now, to enable people simply to leave work behind.In fact, among the poorest groups, basic incomes would enhance the dignity- and solidarity-enhancing effects of work, by easing some of the pressure on people - particularly women - who are now vastly overworked. Instead of constantly fearing for their livelihoods, self-employed people, such as small-scale producers and vendors, could engage in more strategic decision-making, taking advantage of their enhanced bargaining power against traders, middlemen, creditors, and landlords.The final argument against basic income is that the poor will use the money to fund personally or socially detrimental activities, such as gambling and alcohol consumption. But experiences with direct cash transfers in a range of countries, including Ecuador, India, Mexico, and Uganda, have not provided much evidence of such misuse; in general, the cash is spent on worthwhile goods and services.Proposals for a universal basic income, fancied by utopian socialists and libertarians, may be premature in the advanced countries. Butsuch schemes should not be dismissed in the developing world, where conditions are such that they could offer an affordable alternative to administratively unwieldy and ineffective welfare programs. Basic incomes are no panacea; but for overworked developing-country citizens living in extreme poverty, they would certainly be a relief.Q.“And no feasible basic income would be large enough, at least for now, to enable people simply to leave work behind” implies that:a)Any amount of basic income is not sufficient to improve the conditions of poorb)At its nascent stage, the universal basic income scheme will not lead to undervaluation of work by poorc)There is a need for a basic income that will encourage poor to leave workd)People not satisfied with their work can rely on basicincome amount for survivalCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Answer the following question based on the information given below.The old idea of recasting the welfare state by instituting an unconditional universal basic income has lately been capturing imaginations across the political spectrum. On the left, it is regarded as a simple and potentially comprehensive antidote to poverty. On the right, it is viewed as a means to demolish complex welfare bureaucracies while recognizing the need for some social transfer obligations in a way that doesn’t weaken incentives significantly. It also provides some assurance for the dreaded future when robots may replace workers in many sectors.The main drawback, according to critics, is that a basic income would weaken the motivation to work, particularly among the poor. Given that the value of work extends beyond income, the logic goes, this could pose a serious problem. European social democrats, for example, worry that a basic income could undermine the worker solidarity that underpins current social-insurance programs. But, in developing countries, workers in the dominant informal sector are already excluded from social-insurance programs. And no feasible basic income would be large enough, at least for now, to enable people simply to leave work behind.In fact, among the poorest groups, basic incomes would enhance the dignity- and solidarity-enhancing effects of work, by easing some of the pressure on people - particularly women - who are now vastly overworked. Instead of constantly fearing for their livelihoods, self-employed people, such as small-scale producers and vendors, could engage in more strategic decision-making, taking advantage of their enhanced bargaining power against traders, middlemen, creditors, and landlords.The final argument against basic income is that the poor will use the money to fund personally or socially detrimental activities, such as gambling and alcohol consumption. But experiences with direct cash transfers in a range of countries, including Ecuador, India, Mexico, and Uganda, have not provided much evidence of such misuse; in general, the cash is spent on worthwhile goods and services.Proposals for a universal basic income, fancied by utopian socialists and libertarians, may be premature in the advanced countries. Butsuch schemes should not be dismissed in the developing world, where conditions are such that they could offer an affordable alternative to administratively unwieldy and ineffective welfare programs. Basic incomes are no panacea; but for overworked developing-country citizens living in extreme poverty, they would certainly be a relief.Q.“And no feasible basic income would be large enough, at least for now, to enable people simply to leave work behind” implies that:a)Any amount of basic income is not sufficient to improve the conditions of poorb)At its nascent stage, the universal basic income scheme will not lead to undervaluation of work by poorc)There is a need for a basic income that will encourage poor to leave workd)People not satisfied with their work can rely on basicincome amount for survivalCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.