A Penny Saved is Mobility Earned 72%

By Steve Zehngut32%

11/25/2009, 9:51:27 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 64.9% and a BS Rank of 72% (5,416 of 18,814 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 71.20% 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) 
Confirmation Bias
7.3%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
25.9%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
4.7%
Framing Effect
13.8%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
20.3%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
14.7%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
25.9%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
14.7%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
4.7%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
25.9%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
13.8%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
14.7%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
2.6%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
9.1%
Quote-first Misdirection
9.1%
Biased Writer Voice
33.2%
Indoctrination
14.7%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
7.8%

232 words analyzed.

Analysis

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