A Penny Saved is Mobility Earned 61%

By Steve Zehngut71%

11/25/2009, 1:51:27 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Negativity Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 33.2% saturation with 77 hits. Analysis detected 609 faulty-reasoning hits from 232 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 48.7% and a BS Rank of 61% (11,680 of 29,424 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 60.30% of the article peer group.

Advancing Economic Mobility Through Savings 
November 24, 2009 
Reid Cramer 
Rourke OBrien 
Daniel Cooper (Federal Reserve Bank of Boston), Maria Luengo-Prado (Northeastern University) 
As the saying goes, “A penny saved is a penny earned,” but does that penny saved translate into greater economic mobility? 
Movement up the income ladder is fairly limited for children of low-income parents—42 percent of children born to parents on the bottom rung of the income ladder remain on the bottom rung a generation later.i To date, however, there has been less analysis that shows clearly how income mobility differs based on one’s own or one’s parents’ level of savings. 
This paper clearly demonstrates the relationship between savings and economic mobility. 
Using data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), the paper first explores whether having parents with high savings (i.e., above median savings) or having high savings oneself, improves one’s chances of making the climb up the income ladder, or prevents one from falling down it. 
Second, it examines federal incentives and disincentives to savings in the federal tax code and public assistance programs. 
And third, consistent with the project’s recently released nonpartisan policy road map to enhance mobility, it makes recommendations on ways public policy can be improved to encourage savings, especially among low- and moderate-income families. 
To read the entire paper, click here. 
Attachments: 
EMP Savings Reports (pdf) 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.3%Steve Zehngut: 4.1%The Daily Caller: 4.7%Confirmation Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 25.9%Steve Zehngut: 1.5%The Daily Caller: 2.5%Availability Heuristic25.9%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Steve Zehngut: 3.9%The Daily Caller: 2.8%Overconfidence Bias4.7%This article: 13.8%Steve Zehngut: 10.7%The Daily Caller: 8.9%Framing Effect13.8%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 1.2%The Daily Caller: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 20.3%Steve Zehngut: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 0.7%Status Quo Bias20.3%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 14.7%Steve Zehngut: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 2.2%Optimism Bias14.7%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 4.2%The Daily Caller: 2.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 25.9%Steve Zehngut: 8.3%The Daily Caller: 7.6%Negativity Bias25.9%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 14.7%Steve Zehngut: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 1.8%In-Group Bias14.7%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 1.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.7%Steve Zehngut: 2.4%The Daily Caller: 4.0%Appeal to Authority4.7%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 2.3%The Daily Caller: 2.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 3.8%The Daily Caller: 1.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 25.9%Steve Zehngut: 5.1%The Daily Caller: 5.6%Hasty Generalization25.9%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.6%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 5.7%The Daily Caller: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 13.8%Steve Zehngut: 1.2%The Daily Caller: 1.7%Begging the Question13.8%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 4.3%The Daily Caller: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 14.7%Steve Zehngut: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 0.3%Composition/Division14.7%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 1.1%The Daily Caller: 1.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.6%Steve Zehngut: 2.0%The Daily Caller: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.6%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.1%Steve Zehngut: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 2.0%Unattributed Quote9.1%This article: 9.1%Steve Zehngut: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection9.1%This article: 33.2%Steve Zehngut: 10.0%The Daily Caller: 7.0%Biased Writer Voice33.2%This article: 14.7%Steve Zehngut: 2.0%The Daily Caller: 2.8%Indoctrination14.7%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Zehngut: 1.2%The Daily Caller: 4.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Steve Zehngut: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.8%

232 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers6.5%attributed speech217writer words
100%flagged-word coverage
11 attributed words73% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +96.8 ptsWriter: 3.2%Daniel Cooper (Federal Reserve Bank of Boston): 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-35.5 ptsWriter: 35.5%Daniel Cooper (Federal Reserve Bank of Boston): 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-15.7 ptsWriter: 15.7%Daniel Cooper (Federal Reserve Bank of Boston): 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-9.7 ptsWriter: 9.7%Daniel Cooper (Federal Reserve Bank of Boston): 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-9.7 ptsWriter: 9.7%Daniel Cooper (Federal Reserve Bank of Boston): 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.