Question Description
Direction: Read the following passages given below and answer the questions given at the end of each passage.How many really suffer as a result of labour market problems? This is one of the most critical yet contentious social policy questions. In many ways, our social statistics exaggerate the degree of hardship. Unemployment does not have the same dire consequences today as it did in the 1930s when most of the unemployed were primary breadwinners, when income and earnings were usually much closer to the margin of subsistence, and when there were no countervailing social programmes for those failing in the labour market. Increasing affluence, the rise of families with more than one wage earner, the growing predominance of secondary earners among the unemployed, and improved social welfare protection have unquestionably mitigated the consequences of joblessness.Earnings and income data also overstate the dimensions of hardship. Among the millions with hourly earnings at or below the minimum wage level, the overwhelming majority are from multiple-earner, relatively affluent families. Most of those counted by the poverty statistics are elderly or handicapped or have family responsibilities which keep them out of the labour force, so the poverty statistics are by no means an accurate indicator of labour market pathologies. Yet there are also many ways our social statistics underestimate the degree of labour-market-related hardship. The unemployment counts exclude the millions of fully employed workers whose wages are so low that their families remain in poverty. Low wages and repeated or prolonged unemployment frequently interact to undermine the capacity for self-support. Since the number experiencing joblessness at same time during the year is several times the number unemployed in any month, those who suffer as a result of forced idleness can equal or exceed average annual unemployment, even though only a minority of the jobless in any month really suffer.For every person counted in the monthly unemployment tallies, there is another working part-time because of the inability to find full-time work, or else outside the labour force but wanting a job. Finally, income transfers in our country have always focused on the elderly, disabled, and dependent, neglecting the needs of the working poor, so that the dramatic expansion of cash and in-kind transfers does not necessarily mean that those failing in the labour market are adequately protected.As a result of such contradictory evidence, it is uncertain whether those suffering seriously as a result of labour market problems number in the hundreds of thousands or the tens of millions, and, hence, whether high levels of joblessness can be tolerated or must be countered by job creation and economic stimulus. There is only one area of agreement in this debate that the existing poverty, employment, and earnings statistics are inadequate for one their primary applications, measuring the consequences of labour market problems.Q. Which of the following is the principal topic of the passage?a)What causes labour market pathologies that result in sufferingb)Why income measures are imprecise in measuring degrees of povertyc)Which of the currently used statistical procedures are the best for estimating the incidence of hardship that is due to unemploymentd)How social statistics give an unclear picture of the degree of hardship caused by low wages and insufficient employment opportunitiesCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Direction: Read the following passages given below and answer the questions given at the end of each passage.How many really suffer as a result of labour market problems? This is one of the most critical yet contentious social policy questions. In many ways, our social statistics exaggerate the degree of hardship. Unemployment does not have the same dire consequences today as it did in the 1930s when most of the unemployed were primary breadwinners, when income and earnings were usually much closer to the margin of subsistence, and when there were no countervailing social programmes for those failing in the labour market. Increasing affluence, the rise of families with more than one wage earner, the growing predominance of secondary earners among the unemployed, and improved social welfare protection have unquestionably mitigated the consequences of joblessness.Earnings and income data also overstate the dimensions of hardship. Among the millions with hourly earnings at or below the minimum wage level, the overwhelming majority are from multiple-earner, relatively affluent families. Most of those counted by the poverty statistics are elderly or handicapped or have family responsibilities which keep them out of the labour force, so the poverty statistics are by no means an accurate indicator of labour market pathologies. Yet there are also many ways our social statistics underestimate the degree of labour-market-related hardship. The unemployment counts exclude the millions of fully employed workers whose wages are so low that their families remain in poverty. Low wages and repeated or prolonged unemployment frequently interact to undermine the capacity for self-support. Since the number experiencing joblessness at same time during the year is several times the number unemployed in any month, those who suffer as a result of forced idleness can equal or exceed average annual unemployment, even though only a minority of the jobless in any month really suffer.For every person counted in the monthly unemployment tallies, there is another working part-time because of the inability to find full-time work, or else outside the labour force but wanting a job. Finally, income transfers in our country have always focused on the elderly, disabled, and dependent, neglecting the needs of the working poor, so that the dramatic expansion of cash and in-kind transfers does not necessarily mean that those failing in the labour market are adequately protected.As a result of such contradictory evidence, it is uncertain whether those suffering seriously as a result of labour market problems number in the hundreds of thousands or the tens of millions, and, hence, whether high levels of joblessness can be tolerated or must be countered by job creation and economic stimulus. There is only one area of agreement in this debate that the existing poverty, employment, and earnings statistics are inadequate for one their primary applications, measuring the consequences of labour market problems.Q. Which of the following is the principal topic of the passage?a)What causes labour market pathologies that result in sufferingb)Why income measures are imprecise in measuring degrees of povertyc)Which of the currently used statistical procedures are the best for estimating the incidence of hardship that is due to unemploymentd)How social statistics give an unclear picture of the degree of hardship caused by low wages and insufficient employment opportunitiesCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Direction: Read the following passages given below and answer the questions given at the end of each passage.How many really suffer as a result of labour market problems? This is one of the most critical yet contentious social policy questions. In many ways, our social statistics exaggerate the degree of hardship. Unemployment does not have the same dire consequences today as it did in the 1930s when most of the unemployed were primary breadwinners, when income and earnings were usually much closer to the margin of subsistence, and when there were no countervailing social programmes for those failing in the labour market. Increasing affluence, the rise of families with more than one wage earner, the growing predominance of secondary earners among the unemployed, and improved social welfare protection have unquestionably mitigated the consequences of joblessness.Earnings and income data also overstate the dimensions of hardship. Among the millions with hourly earnings at or below the minimum wage level, the overwhelming majority are from multiple-earner, relatively affluent families. Most of those counted by the poverty statistics are elderly or handicapped or have family responsibilities which keep them out of the labour force, so the poverty statistics are by no means an accurate indicator of labour market pathologies. Yet there are also many ways our social statistics underestimate the degree of labour-market-related hardship. The unemployment counts exclude the millions of fully employed workers whose wages are so low that their families remain in poverty. Low wages and repeated or prolonged unemployment frequently interact to undermine the capacity for self-support. Since the number experiencing joblessness at same time during the year is several times the number unemployed in any month, those who suffer as a result of forced idleness can equal or exceed average annual unemployment, even though only a minority of the jobless in any month really suffer.For every person counted in the monthly unemployment tallies, there is another working part-time because of the inability to find full-time work, or else outside the labour force but wanting a job. Finally, income transfers in our country have always focused on the elderly, disabled, and dependent, neglecting the needs of the working poor, so that the dramatic expansion of cash and in-kind transfers does not necessarily mean that those failing in the labour market are adequately protected.As a result of such contradictory evidence, it is uncertain whether those suffering seriously as a result of labour market problems number in the hundreds of thousands or the tens of millions, and, hence, whether high levels of joblessness can be tolerated or must be countered by job creation and economic stimulus. There is only one area of agreement in this debate that the existing poverty, employment, and earnings statistics are inadequate for one their primary applications, measuring the consequences of labour market problems.Q. Which of the following is the principal topic of the passage?a)What causes labour market pathologies that result in sufferingb)Why income measures are imprecise in measuring degrees of povertyc)Which of the currently used statistical procedures are the best for estimating the incidence of hardship that is due to unemploymentd)How social statistics give an unclear picture of the degree of hardship caused by low wages and insufficient employment opportunitiesCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Direction: Read the following passages given below and answer the questions given at the end of each passage.How many really suffer as a result of labour market problems? This is one of the most critical yet contentious social policy questions. In many ways, our social statistics exaggerate the degree of hardship. Unemployment does not have the same dire consequences today as it did in the 1930s when most of the unemployed were primary breadwinners, when income and earnings were usually much closer to the margin of subsistence, and when there were no countervailing social programmes for those failing in the labour market. Increasing affluence, the rise of families with more than one wage earner, the growing predominance of secondary earners among the unemployed, and improved social welfare protection have unquestionably mitigated the consequences of joblessness.Earnings and income data also overstate the dimensions of hardship. Among the millions with hourly earnings at or below the minimum wage level, the overwhelming majority are from multiple-earner, relatively affluent families. Most of those counted by the poverty statistics are elderly or handicapped or have family responsibilities which keep them out of the labour force, so the poverty statistics are by no means an accurate indicator of labour market pathologies. Yet there are also many ways our social statistics underestimate the degree of labour-market-related hardship. The unemployment counts exclude the millions of fully employed workers whose wages are so low that their families remain in poverty. Low wages and repeated or prolonged unemployment frequently interact to undermine the capacity for self-support. Since the number experiencing joblessness at same time during the year is several times the number unemployed in any month, those who suffer as a result of forced idleness can equal or exceed average annual unemployment, even though only a minority of the jobless in any month really suffer.For every person counted in the monthly unemployment tallies, there is another working part-time because of the inability to find full-time work, or else outside the labour force but wanting a job. Finally, income transfers in our country have always focused on the elderly, disabled, and dependent, neglecting the needs of the working poor, so that the dramatic expansion of cash and in-kind transfers does not necessarily mean that those failing in the labour market are adequately protected.As a result of such contradictory evidence, it is uncertain whether those suffering seriously as a result of labour market problems number in the hundreds of thousands or the tens of millions, and, hence, whether high levels of joblessness can be tolerated or must be countered by job creation and economic stimulus. There is only one area of agreement in this debate that the existing poverty, employment, and earnings statistics are inadequate for one their primary applications, measuring the consequences of labour market problems.Q. Which of the following is the principal topic of the passage?a)What causes labour market pathologies that result in sufferingb)Why income measures are imprecise in measuring degrees of povertyc)Which of the currently used statistical procedures are the best for estimating the incidence of hardship that is due to unemploymentd)How social statistics give an unclear picture of the degree of hardship caused by low wages and insufficient employment opportunitiesCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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 Direction: Read the following passages given below and answer the questions given at the end of each passage.How many really suffer as a result of labour market problems? This is one of the most critical yet contentious social policy questions. In many ways, our social statistics exaggerate the degree of hardship. Unemployment does not have the same dire consequences today as it did in the 1930s when most of the unemployed were primary breadwinners, when income and earnings were usually much closer to the margin of subsistence, and when there were no countervailing social programmes for those failing in the labour market. Increasing affluence, the rise of families with more than one wage earner, the growing predominance of secondary earners among the unemployed, and improved social welfare protection have unquestionably mitigated the consequences of joblessness.Earnings and income data also overstate the dimensions of hardship. Among the millions with hourly earnings at or below the minimum wage level, the overwhelming majority are from multiple-earner, relatively affluent families. Most of those counted by the poverty statistics are elderly or handicapped or have family responsibilities which keep them out of the labour force, so the poverty statistics are by no means an accurate indicator of labour market pathologies. Yet there are also many ways our social statistics underestimate the degree of labour-market-related hardship. The unemployment counts exclude the millions of fully employed workers whose wages are so low that their families remain in poverty. Low wages and repeated or prolonged unemployment frequently interact to undermine the capacity for self-support. Since the number experiencing joblessness at same time during the year is several times the number unemployed in any month, those who suffer as a result of forced idleness can equal or exceed average annual unemployment, even though only a minority of the jobless in any month really suffer.For every person counted in the monthly unemployment tallies, there is another working part-time because of the inability to find full-time work, or else outside the labour force but wanting a job. Finally, income transfers in our country have always focused on the elderly, disabled, and dependent, neglecting the needs of the working poor, so that the dramatic expansion of cash and in-kind transfers does not necessarily mean that those failing in the labour market are adequately protected.As a result of such contradictory evidence, it is uncertain whether those suffering seriously as a result of labour market problems number in the hundreds of thousands or the tens of millions, and, hence, whether high levels of joblessness can be tolerated or must be countered by job creation and economic stimulus. There is only one area of agreement in this debate that the existing poverty, employment, and earnings statistics are inadequate for one their primary applications, measuring the consequences of labour market problems.Q. Which of the following is the principal topic of the passage?a)What causes labour market pathologies that result in sufferingb)Why income measures are imprecise in measuring degrees of povertyc)Which of the currently used statistical procedures are the best for estimating the incidence of hardship that is due to unemploymentd)How social statistics give an unclear picture of the degree of hardship caused by low wages and insufficient employment opportunitiesCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Direction: Read the following passages given below and answer the questions given at the end of each passage.How many really suffer as a result of labour market problems? This is one of the most critical yet contentious social policy questions. In many ways, our social statistics exaggerate the degree of hardship. Unemployment does not have the same dire consequences today as it did in the 1930s when most of the unemployed were primary breadwinners, when income and earnings were usually much closer to the margin of subsistence, and when there were no countervailing social programmes for those failing in the labour market. Increasing affluence, the rise of families with more than one wage earner, the growing predominance of secondary earners among the unemployed, and improved social welfare protection have unquestionably mitigated the consequences of joblessness.Earnings and income data also overstate the dimensions of hardship. Among the millions with hourly earnings at or below the minimum wage level, the overwhelming majority are from multiple-earner, relatively affluent families. Most of those counted by the poverty statistics are elderly or handicapped or have family responsibilities which keep them out of the labour force, so the poverty statistics are by no means an accurate indicator of labour market pathologies. Yet there are also many ways our social statistics underestimate the degree of labour-market-related hardship. The unemployment counts exclude the millions of fully employed workers whose wages are so low that their families remain in poverty. Low wages and repeated or prolonged unemployment frequently interact to undermine the capacity for self-support. Since the number experiencing joblessness at same time during the year is several times the number unemployed in any month, those who suffer as a result of forced idleness can equal or exceed average annual unemployment, even though only a minority of the jobless in any month really suffer.For every person counted in the monthly unemployment tallies, there is another working part-time because of the inability to find full-time work, or else outside the labour force but wanting a job. Finally, income transfers in our country have always focused on the elderly, disabled, and dependent, neglecting the needs of the working poor, so that the dramatic expansion of cash and in-kind transfers does not necessarily mean that those failing in the labour market are adequately protected.As a result of such contradictory evidence, it is uncertain whether those suffering seriously as a result of labour market problems number in the hundreds of thousands or the tens of millions, and, hence, whether high levels of joblessness can be tolerated or must be countered by job creation and economic stimulus. There is only one area of agreement in this debate that the existing poverty, employment, and earnings statistics are inadequate for one their primary applications, measuring the consequences of labour market problems.Q. Which of the following is the principal topic of the passage?a)What causes labour market pathologies that result in sufferingb)Why income measures are imprecise in measuring degrees of povertyc)Which of the currently used statistical procedures are the best for estimating the incidence of hardship that is due to unemploymentd)How social statistics give an unclear picture of the degree of hardship caused by low wages and insufficient employment opportunitiesCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Direction: Read the following passages given below and answer the questions given at the end of each passage.How many really suffer as a result of labour market problems? This is one of the most critical yet contentious social policy questions. In many ways, our social statistics exaggerate the degree of hardship. Unemployment does not have the same dire consequences today as it did in the 1930s when most of the unemployed were primary breadwinners, when income and earnings were usually much closer to the margin of subsistence, and when there were no countervailing social programmes for those failing in the labour market. Increasing affluence, the rise of families with more than one wage earner, the growing predominance of secondary earners among the unemployed, and improved social welfare protection have unquestionably mitigated the consequences of joblessness.Earnings and income data also overstate the dimensions of hardship. Among the millions with hourly earnings at or below the minimum wage level, the overwhelming majority are from multiple-earner, relatively affluent families. Most of those counted by the poverty statistics are elderly or handicapped or have family responsibilities which keep them out of the labour force, so the poverty statistics are by no means an accurate indicator of labour market pathologies. Yet there are also many ways our social statistics underestimate the degree of labour-market-related hardship. The unemployment counts exclude the millions of fully employed workers whose wages are so low that their families remain in poverty. Low wages and repeated or prolonged unemployment frequently interact to undermine the capacity for self-support. Since the number experiencing joblessness at same time during the year is several times the number unemployed in any month, those who suffer as a result of forced idleness can equal or exceed average annual unemployment, even though only a minority of the jobless in any month really suffer.For every person counted in the monthly unemployment tallies, there is another working part-time because of the inability to find full-time work, or else outside the labour force but wanting a job. Finally, income transfers in our country have always focused on the elderly, disabled, and dependent, neglecting the needs of the working poor, so that the dramatic expansion of cash and in-kind transfers does not necessarily mean that those failing in the labour market are adequately protected.As a result of such contradictory evidence, it is uncertain whether those suffering seriously as a result of labour market problems number in the hundreds of thousands or the tens of millions, and, hence, whether high levels of joblessness can be tolerated or must be countered by job creation and economic stimulus. There is only one area of agreement in this debate that the existing poverty, employment, and earnings statistics are inadequate for one their primary applications, measuring the consequences of labour market problems.Q. Which of the following is the principal topic of the passage?a)What causes labour market pathologies that result in sufferingb)Why income measures are imprecise in measuring degrees of povertyc)Which of the currently used statistical procedures are the best for estimating the incidence of hardship that is due to unemploymentd)How social statistics give an unclear picture of the degree of hardship caused by low wages and insufficient employment opportunitiesCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Direction: Read the following passages given below and answer the questions given at the end of each passage.How many really suffer as a result of labour market problems? This is one of the most critical yet contentious social policy questions. In many ways, our social statistics exaggerate the degree of hardship. Unemployment does not have the same dire consequences today as it did in the 1930s when most of the unemployed were primary breadwinners, when income and earnings were usually much closer to the margin of subsistence, and when there were no countervailing social programmes for those failing in the labour market. Increasing affluence, the rise of families with more than one wage earner, the growing predominance of secondary earners among the unemployed, and improved social welfare protection have unquestionably mitigated the consequences of joblessness.Earnings and income data also overstate the dimensions of hardship. Among the millions with hourly earnings at or below the minimum wage level, the overwhelming majority are from multiple-earner, relatively affluent families. Most of those counted by the poverty statistics are elderly or handicapped or have family responsibilities which keep them out of the labour force, so the poverty statistics are by no means an accurate indicator of labour market pathologies. Yet there are also many ways our social statistics underestimate the degree of labour-market-related hardship. The unemployment counts exclude the millions of fully employed workers whose wages are so low that their families remain in poverty. Low wages and repeated or prolonged unemployment frequently interact to undermine the capacity for self-support. Since the number experiencing joblessness at same time during the year is several times the number unemployed in any month, those who suffer as a result of forced idleness can equal or exceed average annual unemployment, even though only a minority of the jobless in any month really suffer.For every person counted in the monthly unemployment tallies, there is another working part-time because of the inability to find full-time work, or else outside the labour force but wanting a job. Finally, income transfers in our country have always focused on the elderly, disabled, and dependent, neglecting the needs of the working poor, so that the dramatic expansion of cash and in-kind transfers does not necessarily mean that those failing in the labour market are adequately protected.As a result of such contradictory evidence, it is uncertain whether those suffering seriously as a result of labour market problems number in the hundreds of thousands or the tens of millions, and, hence, whether high levels of joblessness can be tolerated or must be countered by job creation and economic stimulus. There is only one area of agreement in this debate that the existing poverty, employment, and earnings statistics are inadequate for one their primary applications, measuring the consequences of labour market problems.Q. Which of the following is the principal topic of the passage?a)What causes labour market pathologies that result in sufferingb)Why income measures are imprecise in measuring degrees of povertyc)Which of the currently used statistical procedures are the best for estimating the incidence of hardship that is due to unemploymentd)How social statistics give an unclear picture of the degree of hardship caused by low wages and insufficient employment opportunitiesCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Direction: Read the following passages given below and answer the questions given at the end of each passage.How many really suffer as a result of labour market problems? This is one of the most critical yet contentious social policy questions. In many ways, our social statistics exaggerate the degree of hardship. Unemployment does not have the same dire consequences today as it did in the 1930s when most of the unemployed were primary breadwinners, when income and earnings were usually much closer to the margin of subsistence, and when there were no countervailing social programmes for those failing in the labour market. Increasing affluence, the rise of families with more than one wage earner, the growing predominance of secondary earners among the unemployed, and improved social welfare protection have unquestionably mitigated the consequences of joblessness.Earnings and income data also overstate the dimensions of hardship. Among the millions with hourly earnings at or below the minimum wage level, the overwhelming majority are from multiple-earner, relatively affluent families. Most of those counted by the poverty statistics are elderly or handicapped or have family responsibilities which keep them out of the labour force, so the poverty statistics are by no means an accurate indicator of labour market pathologies. Yet there are also many ways our social statistics underestimate the degree of labour-market-related hardship. The unemployment counts exclude the millions of fully employed workers whose wages are so low that their families remain in poverty. Low wages and repeated or prolonged unemployment frequently interact to undermine the capacity for self-support. Since the number experiencing joblessness at same time during the year is several times the number unemployed in any month, those who suffer as a result of forced idleness can equal or exceed average annual unemployment, even though only a minority of the jobless in any month really suffer.For every person counted in the monthly unemployment tallies, there is another working part-time because of the inability to find full-time work, or else outside the labour force but wanting a job. Finally, income transfers in our country have always focused on the elderly, disabled, and dependent, neglecting the needs of the working poor, so that the dramatic expansion of cash and in-kind transfers does not necessarily mean that those failing in the labour market are adequately protected.As a result of such contradictory evidence, it is uncertain whether those suffering seriously as a result of labour market problems number in the hundreds of thousands or the tens of millions, and, hence, whether high levels of joblessness can be tolerated or must be countered by job creation and economic stimulus. There is only one area of agreement in this debate that the existing poverty, employment, and earnings statistics are inadequate for one their primary applications, measuring the consequences of labour market problems.Q. Which of the following is the principal topic of the passage?a)What causes labour market pathologies that result in sufferingb)Why income measures are imprecise in measuring degrees of povertyc)Which of the currently used statistical procedures are the best for estimating the incidence of hardship that is due to unemploymentd)How social statistics give an unclear picture of the degree of hardship caused by low wages and insufficient employment opportunitiesCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.