题目内容
In a perfectly free and open market economy, the type of employer--government or private- should have little or no impact on the earnings differentials between women and men. However, if there is discrimination against one sex, it is unlikely that the degree of discrimination by government and private employers will be the same. Differences in the degree of discrimination would result in earnings differentials associated with the type of employer. Given the nature of government and private employers, it seems most likely that discrimination by private employers would be greater. Thus, one would expect that, if women are being discriminated against, government employment would have a positive effect on women’s earnings as compared with their earnings fi~om private employment. The results of a study by Fuchs support this assumption. Fuchs’ results suggest that the earnings of women in an industry composed entirely of government employees would be 14.6 percent greater than the earnings of women in an industry composed exclusively of private employees, other things being equal. In addition, both Fuchs and Sanborn have suggested that the effect of discrimination by consumers on the earnings of self-employed women may be greater than the effect of either government or private employer discrimination on the earnings of women employees. To test this hypothesis, Brown selected a large sample of white male and female workers from the 1970 census and divided them into three categories: private employees, government employees, and self-employed. (Black workers were excluded from the sample to avoid picking up earnings differentials that were the result of racial disparities.) Brown’s research design was controlled for education, labor-force participation, mobility, motivation, and age in order to eliminate these factors as explanation of the study’s results. Brown’s results suggest that men and women are not treated the same by employers and consumers. For men, self-employment is the highest earnings category, with private employment next, and government lowest. For women, this order is reversed. One can infer from Brown’s results that consumers discriminate against self-employed women. In addition, self-employed women may have more difficulty than men in getting good employees and may encounter discrimination from suppliers and from financial institutions. Brown’s results are clearly consistent with Fuchs’ argument that discrimination by consumers has a greater impact on the earnings of women than does discrimination by either government or private employers. Also, the fact that women do better work for government than for private employers implies that private employers are discriminating against women. The results do not prove that government does not discriminate against women. They do, however, demonstrate that if government is discriminating against women, its discriminating is not having as much effect on women’s earnings as is discrimination in the private sector. Which of the following conclusions would the author be most likely to agree with about discrimination against women by private employers and by government employers
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
In America’s fiercely adversarial legal system, a good lawyer is essential. Ask O.J. Simpson. In a landmark case 35 years ago, Gideon v. Wainwright, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that indigent defendants must be provided with a lawyer at state expense because there could be no fair trial in a serious criminal case without one. "This seems to us to be an obvious truth," wrote Justice Hugo Black in his opinion. At the time, the decision was hailed as a triumph for justice, an example of America’s commitment to the ideal of equality before the law. This is the image most Americans still have of their criminal-justice system -- the fairest in the world, in which any defendant, no matter how, gets a smart lawyer who, too often, manages to get the culprit off on a technicality. Nothing could be further from the truth. About 80% of people accused of a felony have to depend on a publicly-provided lawyer; but over the past two decades the eagerness of politicians to look harsh on crime, their reluctance to pay for public defenders, and a series of Supreme Court judgments restricting the grounds for appeal have made a mockery of Gideon. Today many indigent defendants, including those facing long terms of imprisonment or even death, are treated to a "meet’em and plead’em " defense -- a brief consultation in which a harried or incompetent lawyer encourages them to plead guilty or, if that fails, struggle through a short trial in which the defense is massively outgunned by a more experienced, better-paid and better-prepared prosecutor. "We have a wealth-based system of justice," says Stephen Bright, the director of the Southern Center for Human Right. "For the wealthy, it’s gold-plated. For the average poor person, it’s like being herded to the slaughterhouse. In many places the adversarial system barely exists for the poor." Many lawyers, of course, have made heroic efforts for particular defendants for little or no pay, but the charity of lawyers can be relied on to handle only a tiny fraction of cases. As spending on police, prosecutors and prisons has steadily climbed in the past decade, increasing the number of people charged and imprisoned, spending on indigent defense has not kept pace, overwhelming an already hard-pressed system. Which of the following statements is true
某增值税一般纳税人购进免税农产品一批，开具收购发票支付给农业生产者的收购价款为12000元，支付运费1000元，取得非营改增运输企业开具的运输发票，农产品验收入库后，因管理不善丢失1／4，则该项业务准予抵扣的进项税额为（ ）。
In America’s fiercely adversarial legal system, a good lawyer is essential. Ask O.J. Simpson. In a landmark case 35 years ago, Gideon v. Wainwright, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that indigent defendants must be provided with a lawyer at state expense because there could be no fair trial in a serious criminal case without one. "This seems to us to be an obvious truth," wrote Justice Hugo Black in his opinion. At the time, the decision was hailed as a triumph for justice, an example of America’s commitment to the ideal of equality before the law. This is the image most Americans still have of their criminal-justice system -- the fairest in the world, in which any defendant, no matter how, gets a smart lawyer who, too often, manages to get the culprit off on a technicality. Nothing could be further from the truth. About 80% of people accused of a felony have to depend on a publicly-provided lawyer; but over the past two decades the eagerness of politicians to look harsh on crime, their reluctance to pay for public defenders, and a series of Supreme Court judgments restricting the grounds for appeal have made a mockery of Gideon. Today many indigent defendants, including those facing long terms of imprisonment or even death, are treated to a "meet’em and plead’em " defense -- a brief consultation in which a harried or incompetent lawyer encourages them to plead guilty or, if that fails, struggle through a short trial in which the defense is massively outgunned by a more experienced, better-paid and better-prepared prosecutor. "We have a wealth-based system of justice," says Stephen Bright, the director of the Southern Center for Human Right. "For the wealthy, it’s gold-plated. For the average poor person, it’s like being herded to the slaughterhouse. In many places the adversarial system barely exists for the poor." Many lawyers, of course, have made heroic efforts for particular defendants for little or no pay, but the charity of lawyers can be relied on to handle only a tiny fraction of cases. As spending on police, prosecutors and prisons has steadily climbed in the past decade, increasing the number of people charged and imprisoned, spending on indigent defense has not kept pace, overwhelming an already hard-pressed system. It can be inferred from the passage that O.J. Simpson was probably______
In a perfectly free and open market economy, the type of employer--government or private- should have little or no impact on the earnings differentials between women and men. However, if there is discrimination against one sex, it is unlikely that the degree of discrimination by government and private employers will be the same. Differences in the degree of discrimination would result in earnings differentials associated with the type of employer. Given the nature of government and private employers, it seems most likely that discrimination by private employers would be greater. Thus, one would expect that, if women are being discriminated against, government employment would have a positive effect on women’s earnings as compared with their earnings fi~om private employment. The results of a study by Fuchs support this assumption. Fuchs’ results suggest that the earnings of women in an industry composed entirely of government employees would be 14.6 percent greater than the earnings of women in an industry composed exclusively of private employees, other things being equal. In addition, both Fuchs and Sanborn have suggested that the effect of discrimination by consumers on the earnings of self-employed women may be greater than the effect of either government or private employer discrimination on the earnings of women employees. To test this hypothesis, Brown selected a large sample of white male and female workers from the 1970 census and divided them into three categories: private employees, government employees, and self-employed. (Black workers were excluded from the sample to avoid picking up earnings differentials that were the result of racial disparities.) Brown’s research design was controlled for education, labor-force participation, mobility, motivation, and age in order to eliminate these factors as explanation of the study’s results. Brown’s results suggest that men and women are not treated the same by employers and consumers. For men, self-employment is the highest earnings category, with private employment next, and government lowest. For women, this order is reversed. One can infer from Brown’s results that consumers discriminate against self-employed women. In addition, self-employed women may have more difficulty than men in getting good employees and may encounter discrimination from suppliers and from financial institutions. Brown’s results are clearly consistent with Fuchs’ argument that discrimination by consumers has a greater impact on the earnings of women than does discrimination by either government or private employers. Also, the fact that women do better work for government than for private employers implies that private employers are discriminating against women. The results do not prove that government does not discriminate against women. They do, however, demonstrate that if government is discriminating against women, its discriminating is not having as much effect on women’s earnings as is discrimination in the private sector. The passage mentions all of the following as difficulties that self-employed women may encounter except______
微信支付 
支付宝支付