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.

Nonesense, say Wolfers and Stevenson, who cite new polling data (and graphed results) to support their theory.

If anything, Ms. Stevenson and Mr. Wolfers say, absolute income seems to matter more than relative income. In the United States, about 90 percent of people in households making at least $250,000 a year called themselves “very happy” in a recent Gallup Poll. In households with income below $30,000, only 42 percent of people gave that answer.

Easterlin’s response to the rebuttal? While, yes, people who live in wealthier countries are generally more satisfied, there’s no definitive evidence that it is the wealth that’s causing the happiness. So I guess he admits correlation but not causation.

Certainly for those of us who have some measure of wealth, or know people living at a level of wealth, we recognize that money brings a host of complications all its own. Is my hot trophy wife really with me for love? How do I get these friggin charities to leave me the hell alone? Which yacht should I take out today? But in all seriousness, it is a full time job managing a large bank account. And, likely, that wealth creation was the result of countless long hours at the office. I’m sure in many instances earning your riches comes at a cost, including sacrificing quality of life.

Speaking to the new (and old) theory, I would imagine it’s difficult to statistically measure happiness. And with an international poll, you are assuming like interpretation of a set of questions created through a Western perspective. It’s possible that polling for rich happiness in India just doesn’t translate the same as it does in, say, Canada.

To be sure, the happiness to riches equation is one worth revisiting. I’m skeptical about the results but recognize the value of the conversation, especially in the light of this year’s seemingly impending recession. Not to mention election-year politics. Bill Clinton beat a popular president with help from Carville’s phrase “It’s the economy, stupid.” If money really does buy happiness, it looks like we’re going to be some pissed off Americans for the foreseeable future. Maybe the IRS should send out samples of Prozac with those tax rebates.

Popularity: 6% [?]