This is a little old in the news cycle, but I still thought it worthy of conversation: Apparently, a new economic study is claiming money does indeed contribute to personal happiness.

I can hear your thoughts: “Duh.”

Personally, I know if I had a little more disposable income (ahem, Fitz, a raise?) I’d sleep easier at night. But can an income level really affect true life satisfaction? Two University of Pennsylvania economists think it can.

Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers presented their findings to the Brookings Institute several weeks ago. Their theory, while generally accepted by everybody and their mother, proved controversial among economists as it rebuts a 34 year old theory positing just the opposite. The Easterlin paradox, named for economist Richard Easterlin, was published in 1974 and has been widely accepted since as a “key concept in happiness economics.”

Easterlin’s findings indicate that, contrary to expectation, happiness at a national level does not increase with wealth once basic needs are fulfilled (think Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs). Further, he theorizes that relative income - how much you earn compared to a counterpart - matters more than one’s absolute income. Admit it, you’re smirking because you make more than your cubiclemate.