Question Description
One of the most critical yet troublesome social policy questions is how many actually suffer because of labor market problems. Our social statistics, in many ways, exaggerate the degree of difficulty. Today unemployment does not have similar effects as compared to it in the 1930's. Then, most of the unemployed were primary earning member of their respective families, when income was usually at the level of subsistence, and when there were no social programs for those not succeeding in the labor market. Increasing affluence, arising out of increase in the families with more than single wage earner, the rising predominance of secondary earners among the unemployed, and new social welfare protection schemes have no doubt mitigated the effect of being without a job.Earnings and income data also exaggerate the extent of suffering. Among many with hourly wage at or below the minimum wage level, the overwhelming majority is from relatively well to do families having multiple-earners. Most of those taken into account by the poverty statistics either have family responsibilities or are elderly or handicapped which keep them out of the labor force, so the poverty statistics are by no means correct indicators of labor market indices.Yet, our social statistics underrate the degree of hardships in the labor-market in many ways. The unemployment counts do not include the millions of fulltime employed workers with wages so low that their families remain in poverty. Low wages and frequent or long time unemployment often cause lack of ability to support oneself. Because the number of people facing unemployment at some time during the year is many times the number unemployed across the year, those who bear the brunt of forced joblessness can equal or surpass average annual unemployment, even though only a small number of the unemployed in any month actually suffer. For every person included in the monthly data, there is one working part-time because of his incapability to find full-time work, or else outside the labor force but looking for an employment. Finally, social welfare schemes in our country have always focused on the elderly, disabled, and dependent, so that the unusual expansion of cash and in-kind transfers does not necessarily mean that those not succeeding are effectively protected.As a result of such contradicting evidence, number of those suffering seriously as a result of labor market problems is uncertain, and, hence, it is debatable if high levels of unemployment can be tolerated or must be countered by job creation and economic stimulus. There is only one unanimous agreement in this deliberation that the extant poverty, employment, and earnings statistics are not adequate for measuring the consequences of labor market problems, their primary applications.Q. According to the passage, the effect of social welfare schemes for the low-income people is not often felt by:a)the employed poor.b)dependent members in single-earner families.c)workers who become disabled.d)retired workers.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about One of the most critical yet troublesome social policy questions is how many actually suffer because of labor market problems. Our social statistics, in many ways, exaggerate the degree of difficulty. Today unemployment does not have similar effects as compared to it in the 1930's. Then, most of the unemployed were primary earning member of their respective families, when income was usually at the level of subsistence, and when there were no social programs for those not succeeding in the labor market. Increasing affluence, arising out of increase in the families with more than single wage earner, the rising predominance of secondary earners among the unemployed, and new social welfare protection schemes have no doubt mitigated the effect of being without a job.Earnings and income data also exaggerate the extent of suffering. Among many with hourly wage at or below the minimum wage level, the overwhelming majority is from relatively well to do families having multiple-earners. Most of those taken into account by the poverty statistics either have family responsibilities or are elderly or handicapped which keep them out of the labor force, so the poverty statistics are by no means correct indicators of labor market indices.Yet, our social statistics underrate the degree of hardships in the labor-market in many ways. The unemployment counts do not include the millions of fulltime employed workers with wages so low that their families remain in poverty. Low wages and frequent or long time unemployment often cause lack of ability to support oneself. Because the number of people facing unemployment at some time during the year is many times the number unemployed across the year, those who bear the brunt of forced joblessness can equal or surpass average annual unemployment, even though only a small number of the unemployed in any month actually suffer. For every person included in the monthly data, there is one working part-time because of his incapability to find full-time work, or else outside the labor force but looking for an employment. Finally, social welfare schemes in our country have always focused on the elderly, disabled, and dependent, so that the unusual expansion of cash and in-kind transfers does not necessarily mean that those not succeeding are effectively protected.As a result of such contradicting evidence, number of those suffering seriously as a result of labor market problems is uncertain, and, hence, it is debatable if high levels of unemployment can be tolerated or must be countered by job creation and economic stimulus. There is only one unanimous agreement in this deliberation that the extant poverty, employment, and earnings statistics are not adequate for measuring the consequences of labor market problems, their primary applications.Q. According to the passage, the effect of social welfare schemes for the low-income people is not often felt by:a)the employed poor.b)dependent members in single-earner families.c)workers who become disabled.d)retired workers.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for One of the most critical yet troublesome social policy questions is how many actually suffer because of labor market problems. Our social statistics, in many ways, exaggerate the degree of difficulty. Today unemployment does not have similar effects as compared to it in the 1930's. Then, most of the unemployed were primary earning member of their respective families, when income was usually at the level of subsistence, and when there were no social programs for those not succeeding in the labor market. Increasing affluence, arising out of increase in the families with more than single wage earner, the rising predominance of secondary earners among the unemployed, and new social welfare protection schemes have no doubt mitigated the effect of being without a job.Earnings and income data also exaggerate the extent of suffering. Among many with hourly wage at or below the minimum wage level, the overwhelming majority is from relatively well to do families having multiple-earners. Most of those taken into account by the poverty statistics either have family responsibilities or are elderly or handicapped which keep them out of the labor force, so the poverty statistics are by no means correct indicators of labor market indices.Yet, our social statistics underrate the degree of hardships in the labor-market in many ways. The unemployment counts do not include the millions of fulltime employed workers with wages so low that their families remain in poverty. Low wages and frequent or long time unemployment often cause lack of ability to support oneself. Because the number of people facing unemployment at some time during the year is many times the number unemployed across the year, those who bear the brunt of forced joblessness can equal or surpass average annual unemployment, even though only a small number of the unemployed in any month actually suffer. For every person included in the monthly data, there is one working part-time because of his incapability to find full-time work, or else outside the labor force but looking for an employment. Finally, social welfare schemes in our country have always focused on the elderly, disabled, and dependent, so that the unusual expansion of cash and in-kind transfers does not necessarily mean that those not succeeding are effectively protected.As a result of such contradicting evidence, number of those suffering seriously as a result of labor market problems is uncertain, and, hence, it is debatable if high levels of unemployment can be tolerated or must be countered by job creation and economic stimulus. There is only one unanimous agreement in this deliberation that the extant poverty, employment, and earnings statistics are not adequate for measuring the consequences of labor market problems, their primary applications.Q. According to the passage, the effect of social welfare schemes for the low-income people is not often felt by:a)the employed poor.b)dependent members in single-earner families.c)workers who become disabled.d)retired workers.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for One of the most critical yet troublesome social policy questions is how many actually suffer because of labor market problems. Our social statistics, in many ways, exaggerate the degree of difficulty. Today unemployment does not have similar effects as compared to it in the 1930's. Then, most of the unemployed were primary earning member of their respective families, when income was usually at the level of subsistence, and when there were no social programs for those not succeeding in the labor market. Increasing affluence, arising out of increase in the families with more than single wage earner, the rising predominance of secondary earners among the unemployed, and new social welfare protection schemes have no doubt mitigated the effect of being without a job.Earnings and income data also exaggerate the extent of suffering. Among many with hourly wage at or below the minimum wage level, the overwhelming majority is from relatively well to do families having multiple-earners. Most of those taken into account by the poverty statistics either have family responsibilities or are elderly or handicapped which keep them out of the labor force, so the poverty statistics are by no means correct indicators of labor market indices.Yet, our social statistics underrate the degree of hardships in the labor-market in many ways. The unemployment counts do not include the millions of fulltime employed workers with wages so low that their families remain in poverty. Low wages and frequent or long time unemployment often cause lack of ability to support oneself. Because the number of people facing unemployment at some time during the year is many times the number unemployed across the year, those who bear the brunt of forced joblessness can equal or surpass average annual unemployment, even though only a small number of the unemployed in any month actually suffer. For every person included in the monthly data, there is one working part-time because of his incapability to find full-time work, or else outside the labor force but looking for an employment. Finally, social welfare schemes in our country have always focused on the elderly, disabled, and dependent, so that the unusual expansion of cash and in-kind transfers does not necessarily mean that those not succeeding are effectively protected.As a result of such contradicting evidence, number of those suffering seriously as a result of labor market problems is uncertain, and, hence, it is debatable if high levels of unemployment can be tolerated or must be countered by job creation and economic stimulus. There is only one unanimous agreement in this deliberation that the extant poverty, employment, and earnings statistics are not adequate for measuring the consequences of labor market problems, their primary applications.Q. According to the passage, the effect of social welfare schemes for the low-income people is not often felt by:a)the employed poor.b)dependent members in single-earner families.c)workers who become disabled.d)retired workers.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of One of the most critical yet troublesome social policy questions is how many actually suffer because of labor market problems. Our social statistics, in many ways, exaggerate the degree of difficulty. Today unemployment does not have similar effects as compared to it in the 1930's. Then, most of the unemployed were primary earning member of their respective families, when income was usually at the level of subsistence, and when there were no social programs for those not succeeding in the labor market. Increasing affluence, arising out of increase in the families with more than single wage earner, the rising predominance of secondary earners among the unemployed, and new social welfare protection schemes have no doubt mitigated the effect of being without a job.Earnings and income data also exaggerate the extent of suffering. Among many with hourly wage at or below the minimum wage level, the overwhelming majority is from relatively well to do families having multiple-earners. Most of those taken into account by the poverty statistics either have family responsibilities or are elderly or handicapped which keep them out of the labor force, so the poverty statistics are by no means correct indicators of labor market indices.Yet, our social statistics underrate the degree of hardships in the labor-market in many ways. The unemployment counts do not include the millions of fulltime employed workers with wages so low that their families remain in poverty. Low wages and frequent or long time unemployment often cause lack of ability to support oneself. Because the number of people facing unemployment at some time during the year is many times the number unemployed across the year, those who bear the brunt of forced joblessness can equal or surpass average annual unemployment, even though only a small number of the unemployed in any month actually suffer. For every person included in the monthly data, there is one working part-time because of his incapability to find full-time work, or else outside the labor force but looking for an employment. Finally, social welfare schemes in our country have always focused on the elderly, disabled, and dependent, so that the unusual expansion of cash and in-kind transfers does not necessarily mean that those not succeeding are effectively protected.As a result of such contradicting evidence, number of those suffering seriously as a result of labor market problems is uncertain, and, hence, it is debatable if high levels of unemployment can be tolerated or must be countered by job creation and economic stimulus. There is only one unanimous agreement in this deliberation that the extant poverty, employment, and earnings statistics are not adequate for measuring the consequences of labor market problems, their primary applications.Q. According to the passage, the effect of social welfare schemes for the low-income people is not often felt by:a)the employed poor.b)dependent members in single-earner families.c)workers who become disabled.d)retired workers.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of One of the most critical yet troublesome social policy questions is how many actually suffer because of labor market problems. Our social statistics, in many ways, exaggerate the degree of difficulty. Today unemployment does not have similar effects as compared to it in the 1930's. Then, most of the unemployed were primary earning member of their respective families, when income was usually at the level of subsistence, and when there were no social programs for those not succeeding in the labor market. Increasing affluence, arising out of increase in the families with more than single wage earner, the rising predominance of secondary earners among the unemployed, and new social welfare protection schemes have no doubt mitigated the effect of being without a job.Earnings and income data also exaggerate the extent of suffering. Among many with hourly wage at or below the minimum wage level, the overwhelming majority is from relatively well to do families having multiple-earners. Most of those taken into account by the poverty statistics either have family responsibilities or are elderly or handicapped which keep them out of the labor force, so the poverty statistics are by no means correct indicators of labor market indices.Yet, our social statistics underrate the degree of hardships in the labor-market in many ways. The unemployment counts do not include the millions of fulltime employed workers with wages so low that their families remain in poverty. Low wages and frequent or long time unemployment often cause lack of ability to support oneself. Because the number of people facing unemployment at some time during the year is many times the number unemployed across the year, those who bear the brunt of forced joblessness can equal or surpass average annual unemployment, even though only a small number of the unemployed in any month actually suffer. For every person included in the monthly data, there is one working part-time because of his incapability to find full-time work, or else outside the labor force but looking for an employment. Finally, social welfare schemes in our country have always focused on the elderly, disabled, and dependent, so that the unusual expansion of cash and in-kind transfers does not necessarily mean that those not succeeding are effectively protected.As a result of such contradicting evidence, number of those suffering seriously as a result of labor market problems is uncertain, and, hence, it is debatable if high levels of unemployment can be tolerated or must be countered by job creation and economic stimulus. There is only one unanimous agreement in this deliberation that the extant poverty, employment, and earnings statistics are not adequate for measuring the consequences of labor market problems, their primary applications.Q. According to the passage, the effect of social welfare schemes for the low-income people is not often felt by:a)the employed poor.b)dependent members in single-earner families.c)workers who become disabled.d)retired workers.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for One of the most critical yet troublesome social policy questions is how many actually suffer because of labor market problems. Our social statistics, in many ways, exaggerate the degree of difficulty. Today unemployment does not have similar effects as compared to it in the 1930's. Then, most of the unemployed were primary earning member of their respective families, when income was usually at the level of subsistence, and when there were no social programs for those not succeeding in the labor market. Increasing affluence, arising out of increase in the families with more than single wage earner, the rising predominance of secondary earners among the unemployed, and new social welfare protection schemes have no doubt mitigated the effect of being without a job.Earnings and income data also exaggerate the extent of suffering. Among many with hourly wage at or below the minimum wage level, the overwhelming majority is from relatively well to do families having multiple-earners. Most of those taken into account by the poverty statistics either have family responsibilities or are elderly or handicapped which keep them out of the labor force, so the poverty statistics are by no means correct indicators of labor market indices.Yet, our social statistics underrate the degree of hardships in the labor-market in many ways. The unemployment counts do not include the millions of fulltime employed workers with wages so low that their families remain in poverty. Low wages and frequent or long time unemployment often cause lack of ability to support oneself. Because the number of people facing unemployment at some time during the year is many times the number unemployed across the year, those who bear the brunt of forced joblessness can equal or surpass average annual unemployment, even though only a small number of the unemployed in any month actually suffer. For every person included in the monthly data, there is one working part-time because of his incapability to find full-time work, or else outside the labor force but looking for an employment. Finally, social welfare schemes in our country have always focused on the elderly, disabled, and dependent, so that the unusual expansion of cash and in-kind transfers does not necessarily mean that those not succeeding are effectively protected.As a result of such contradicting evidence, number of those suffering seriously as a result of labor market problems is uncertain, and, hence, it is debatable if high levels of unemployment can be tolerated or must be countered by job creation and economic stimulus. There is only one unanimous agreement in this deliberation that the extant poverty, employment, and earnings statistics are not adequate for measuring the consequences of labor market problems, their primary applications.Q. According to the passage, the effect of social welfare schemes for the low-income people is not often felt by:a)the employed poor.b)dependent members in single-earner families.c)workers who become disabled.d)retired workers.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of One of the most critical yet troublesome social policy questions is how many actually suffer because of labor market problems. Our social statistics, in many ways, exaggerate the degree of difficulty. Today unemployment does not have similar effects as compared to it in the 1930's. Then, most of the unemployed were primary earning member of their respective families, when income was usually at the level of subsistence, and when there were no social programs for those not succeeding in the labor market. Increasing affluence, arising out of increase in the families with more than single wage earner, the rising predominance of secondary earners among the unemployed, and new social welfare protection schemes have no doubt mitigated the effect of being without a job.Earnings and income data also exaggerate the extent of suffering. Among many with hourly wage at or below the minimum wage level, the overwhelming majority is from relatively well to do families having multiple-earners. Most of those taken into account by the poverty statistics either have family responsibilities or are elderly or handicapped which keep them out of the labor force, so the poverty statistics are by no means correct indicators of labor market indices.Yet, our social statistics underrate the degree of hardships in the labor-market in many ways. The unemployment counts do not include the millions of fulltime employed workers with wages so low that their families remain in poverty. Low wages and frequent or long time unemployment often cause lack of ability to support oneself. Because the number of people facing unemployment at some time during the year is many times the number unemployed across the year, those who bear the brunt of forced joblessness can equal or surpass average annual unemployment, even though only a small number of the unemployed in any month actually suffer. For every person included in the monthly data, there is one working part-time because of his incapability to find full-time work, or else outside the labor force but looking for an employment. Finally, social welfare schemes in our country have always focused on the elderly, disabled, and dependent, so that the unusual expansion of cash and in-kind transfers does not necessarily mean that those not succeeding are effectively protected.As a result of such contradicting evidence, number of those suffering seriously as a result of labor market problems is uncertain, and, hence, it is debatable if high levels of unemployment can be tolerated or must be countered by job creation and economic stimulus. There is only one unanimous agreement in this deliberation that the extant poverty, employment, and earnings statistics are not adequate for measuring the consequences of labor market problems, their primary applications.Q. According to the passage, the effect of social welfare schemes for the low-income people is not often felt by:a)the employed poor.b)dependent members in single-earner families.c)workers who become disabled.d)retired workers.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice One of the most critical yet troublesome social policy questions is how many actually suffer because of labor market problems. Our social statistics, in many ways, exaggerate the degree of difficulty. Today unemployment does not have similar effects as compared to it in the 1930's. Then, most of the unemployed were primary earning member of their respective families, when income was usually at the level of subsistence, and when there were no social programs for those not succeeding in the labor market. Increasing affluence, arising out of increase in the families with more than single wage earner, the rising predominance of secondary earners among the unemployed, and new social welfare protection schemes have no doubt mitigated the effect of being without a job.Earnings and income data also exaggerate the extent of suffering. Among many with hourly wage at or below the minimum wage level, the overwhelming majority is from relatively well to do families having multiple-earners. Most of those taken into account by the poverty statistics either have family responsibilities or are elderly or handicapped which keep them out of the labor force, so the poverty statistics are by no means correct indicators of labor market indices.Yet, our social statistics underrate the degree of hardships in the labor-market in many ways. The unemployment counts do not include the millions of fulltime employed workers with wages so low that their families remain in poverty. Low wages and frequent or long time unemployment often cause lack of ability to support oneself. Because the number of people facing unemployment at some time during the year is many times the number unemployed across the year, those who bear the brunt of forced joblessness can equal or surpass average annual unemployment, even though only a small number of the unemployed in any month actually suffer. For every person included in the monthly data, there is one working part-time because of his incapability to find full-time work, or else outside the labor force but looking for an employment. Finally, social welfare schemes in our country have always focused on the elderly, disabled, and dependent, so that the unusual expansion of cash and in-kind transfers does not necessarily mean that those not succeeding are effectively protected.As a result of such contradicting evidence, number of those suffering seriously as a result of labor market problems is uncertain, and, hence, it is debatable if high levels of unemployment can be tolerated or must be countered by job creation and economic stimulus. There is only one unanimous agreement in this deliberation that the extant poverty, employment, and earnings statistics are not adequate for measuring the consequences of labor market problems, their primary applications.Q. According to the passage, the effect of social welfare schemes for the low-income people is not often felt by:a)the employed poor.b)dependent members in single-earner families.c)workers who become disabled.d)retired workers.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.