The short answer is yes, sort of. Income (earning money) appears to have a distinct effect from wealth (having money), or consumption (spending money/having stuff). But it’s not entirely clear whether this effect is because people get self-esteem from the act of earning or because, to the extent that individuals’ current income is a signal of their future income, it provides them with a sense of security about their futures. Probably a little of both.

The short answer is yes, sort of. Income (earning money) appears to have a distinct effect from wealth (having money), or consumption (spending money/having stuff). But it’s not entirely clear whether this effect is because people get self-esteem from the act of earning or because, to the extent that individuals’ current income is a signal of their future income, it provides them with a sense of security about their futures. Probably a little of both.

Sorry Will, but this is just crap. I’m as glad as anyone else that improved data are now giving us a better picture of what’s going on here, and as frustrated as anyone else that a lot of the holes in the Easterlin result haven’t gotten as much attention as they deserve. But just because the beliefs conducive to your political views are now being vindicated, doesn’t mean it was obvious all along that you were right and they were wrong, or that the theories that were developed to explain the paradox are as silly as you seem to imply.

Comparison effects and adaptation were perfectly legitimate as potential explanations of the Easterlin result. So, if you’re going to start throwing stones about people ignoring legitimate hypotheses on the basis of political convenience, you might want to step outside that glass house first. In fact, there is still very good individual-level evidence for comparison effects (the evidence for adaptation strikes me as more ambiguous). Just because such effects don’t render money irrelevant to SWB, doesn’t mean they’re not important.

Moreover, to the extent that the “new” results are based simply on better data, they seem to give little credence to your “ceiling effect” or “scale renorming” hypotheses — which would suggest that your gloating is even less justified. You might have been right, but not for any reason you deserve credit for.

P.S. Apologies for the snarky tone, but it’s no worse than yours in this post.

Sorry Will, but this is just crap. I’m as glad as anyone else that improved data are now giving us a better picture of what’s going on here, and as frustrated as anyone else that a lot of the holes in the Easterlin result haven’t gotten as much attention as they deserve. But just because the beliefs conducive to your political views are now being vindicated, doesn’t mean it was obvious all along that you were right and they were wrong, or that the theories that were developed to explain the paradox are as silly as you seem to imply.

Comparison effects and adaptation were perfectly legitimate as potential explanations of the Easterlin result. So, if you’re going to start throwing stones about people ignoring legitimate hypotheses on the basis of political convenience, you might want to step outside that glass house first. In fact, there is still very good individual-level evidence for comparison effects (the evidence for adaptation strikes me as more ambiguous). Just because such effects don’t render money irrelevant to SWB, doesn’t mean they’re not important.

Moreover, to the extent that the “new” results are based simply on better data, they seem to give little credence to your “ceiling effect” or “scale renorming” hypotheses — which would suggest that your gloating is even less justified. You might have been right, but not for any reason you deserve credit for.

P.S. Apologies for the snarky tone, but it’s no worse than yours in this post.