The Case for Reforming U.S. Guest Worker Programs 55%

By AJ Fluehr71%

12/4/2008, 8:41:45 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Negativity Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 78.4% saturation with 178 hits. Analysis detected 859 faulty-reasoning hits from 227 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52.8% and a BS Rank of 55% (9,975 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 54.40% of the article peer group.

Guest worker programs, which bring foreign workers into a country temporarily in order to fill labor shortages,exist in various forms in various countries. 
All over the world, workers migrate from less developed countries to more developed ones looking for work—which may or may not turn out to be temporary. 
Meanwhile, as the movement of guest workers increases across nations, guest workers’ remittances, which support their families— 
and their home countries’ economies—continue to grow as a source of hard currency for developing countries. 
For all the talk about immigration reform, the United States still lacks a workable guest worker program. 
In fact, no one can agree on what such a program should look like. 
America’s current guest worker programs may as well not exist for most workers and employers—and past attempts at reform have gone nowhere. 
This paper points out some of the problems that beset America’s existing guest worker programs. 
It also proposes ways to improve these programs in order to advance the goals of protecting U.S. borders, providing a flexible workforce for employers who cannot find qualified American applicants, and protecting the guest workers themselves against abuse. 
It also looks at a potential reform model now being tried in a small part of the United States that lies far away from the rest of the country—the Mariana Islands. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 9.3%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 31.3%AJ Fluehr: 4.0%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Availability Heuristic31.3%This article: 23.8%AJ Fluehr: 1.6%The Daily Caller: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic23.8%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 5.5%The Daily Caller: 3.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 14.1%AJ Fluehr: 7.1%The Daily Caller: 10.4%Framing Effect14.1%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 1.4%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 9.7%AJ Fluehr: 0.6%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Status Quo Bias9.7%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.7%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.5%AJ Fluehr: 4.1%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Optimism Bias7.5%This article: 7.0%AJ Fluehr: 2.5%The Daily Caller: 2.5%Pessimism Bias7.0%This article: 30.0%AJ Fluehr: 5.2%The Daily Caller: 8.2%Negativity Bias30.0%This article: 16.7%AJ Fluehr: 1.3%The Daily Caller: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias16.7%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.7%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 1.6%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 16.7%AJ Fluehr: 1.3%The Daily Caller: 1.6%Halo Effect16.7%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 2.5%The Daily Caller: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 4.8%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 3.6%The Daily Caller: 4.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 7.5%AJ Fluehr: 4.9%The Daily Caller: 2.9%False Dilemma7.5%This article: 9.7%AJ Fluehr: 4.9%The Daily Caller: 2.4%Slippery Slope9.7%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 27.3%AJ Fluehr: 9.3%The Daily Caller: 6.3%Hasty Generalization27.3%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 16.7%AJ Fluehr: 6.3%The Daily Caller: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion16.7%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 3.3%The Daily Caller: 2.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 14.5%AJ Fluehr: 4.4%The Daily Caller: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.5%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 1.3%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 13.7%AJ Fluehr: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 1.5%Anecdotal13.7%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 16.7%AJ Fluehr: 0.7%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Middle Ground16.7%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.7%The Daily Caller: 2.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 78.4%AJ Fluehr: 13.6%The Daily Caller: 8.5%Biased Writer Voice78.4%This article: 23.3%AJ Fluehr: 4.3%The Daily Caller: 3.6%Indoctrination23.3%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 2.7%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 13.7%AJ Fluehr: 0.8%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…13.7%

227 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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