There is vast scientific evidence that 'happiness' is positively correlated with 'wealth' (both in quotes to indicate that they're broad concepts, I'm not interested in discussing specific definitions). The scientific history is broadly that in the 1970's, it was thought there was little correlation (the 'Easterlin paradox'), in the 1980's and 1990's it was thought there was correlation up to some point of wealth (e.g., income of 15k USD) and after that there was little to none, but in the last decade (with better data and more thought into the subject) even that doesn't seem to hold any more. (yes marginal utility decreases but aside from that).
So, in general, the empirical evidence points to 'more money = more happiness'.
The literature on this spans decades, a 'popular' paper of the last few years that references much of the historical papers and as such can serve as a starting point is [Stevenson & Wolfers, 2008] (http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/betseys/papers/Happiness.pdf).
(a quote in the 'community' on this topic nowadays is (although I haven't been able to verify a source for it): "the average Togolese man would be hospitalised for depression in Denmark.").
Let me start by saying that although I work in academia in a field where I work with these issues from time to time, I am by no mean an expert in any sense of the word, although I do work with people who are - but in those cases I just do what they say, we're not 'equals' or anything. I'm just saying: I'm not arguing from authority here, no do I want to give off that impression.
The link to the original source in your link is dead, so I'm not quite sure which paper they're talking about, but it sounds like the conclusions in the 'third phase' that I described. Issues are obviously much more complex than just 'make 1000 USD more to feel a lot happier', but I'd be surprised if the study would find a real plateau after 75K, rather than a tapered off increase per dollar amount. Some studies have plots that show relationships on a logarithmic scale (after a 'baseline' cutoff point, e.g. 30k or 50k), making it much move obvious that there is a continually rising correlation (or, to put it more bluntly, that yes, more money does make you 'happier', for certain definitions of 'happy'). Of course there are all sorts of methodological issues at that point, comparing between regions, across cultures, etc etc.
Let me put it this way. There are studies who conclude that e.g. people who own 5 million are happier than those who own 100k. This is easily explained: 5 million makes you 'independently wealthy', taking away the stress from having to hold a job to provide subsistence. Do people who make 75k a year typically have 5 million? No. Would it be reasonable to assume that somebody making top 1% in a community would have the same level of happiness than somebody else in that same community who makes double? Yes. So it's all in what you measure and compare. I'm sure the authors of the article referenced in your link acknowledge that, but that they just had a much more narrow research question; a question that lead to the magic number of 75k within the confines of their research. Those nuances get lost in the AP summary, then again in the WSJ summary, then even worse in the headline. I mean the WSJ blurb even acknowledges that happiness does continue to rise even after 75k.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this, just that your link does describe an increasing effect after 75k and not a 'hard' plateau, so yes it's consistent with what I posted before.
Actually, I had though about this issue some more and I looked up this type of research. So my actual point of view is a little bit more nuanced then what I wrote in the parent post. However, I though it would be helpful to start with a proactive thesis to get people thinking about this issue.
Often people in the West just see people in Africa as victims, based on what they see in the media. Start seeing them as humans.
The average Togolese man would be hospitalised for depression in Denmark.
That sounds a bit odd to me, though. How come the suicide rate in Africa is much lower (close to zero) than in Europe?
"However, I though it would be helpful to start with a proactive thesis to get people thinking about this issue."
Well sorry to sound like a grumpy grandpa, but if anything, this site needs less posts of higher quality, not more empty posts with the explicit goal of provoking replies.
"How come the suicide rate in Africa is much lower (close to zero) than in Europe?"
First, correlation between depression and suicide is not linear as you seem to imply. While I don't have the expertise to have an authoritative opinion on this matter, depression is much more complex than 'my life sucks'. It's just as much (more?) about 'I feel my life sucks'. Japan has a very high suicide rate, yet ranks high in various happiness indexes, and has first world GDP.
Secondly, your claim that suicide rates in Africa are close to zero is flat out wrong, as even a cursory google search would have revealed to you. To start there is the objective problem with getting data - many African countries keep little to no statistics on this. Then there is a cultural issue, which incentivises all involved actors to mask or under-report actual causes of death (this is Greenspan talk for: families report suicides as accidents to avoid the social stigma). Furthermore, even the data that is available and at least somewhat reliable, points to African suicide rates that are not substantially different from countries worldwide. For example, the only African country on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_ra... (Zimbabwe) is somewhere in the middle, just above (meaning: slightly worse than) Luxemburg, the most prosperous country in the EU. While Wikipedia isn't the end and all of data, I found that WHO data paints a similar picture when I looked into it a while ago when I had the same discussion, but that data is a lot harder to distill and I don't have time right now to do so.
Well sorry to sound like a grumpy grandpa, but if anything, this site needs less posts of higher quality, not more empty posts with the explicit goal of provoking replies.
I assume you mean more posts of higher quality. I agree with you in general, except that I know no site where the density of high quality posts is so high as here. If it was any higher, I would probably be afraid to post anything. However, social science works different than the topics the discussion is usually about on this site. The best university professors often start their courses by asking provocative questions, which make the students think for themselves. Sometimes the question is more interesting than the answer, if it provokes thought.
Well I meant 'less posts, but of higher quality', but I admit that my wording was unfortunate to the point of indefensible.
I guess we're going off topic here and into a not so interesting discussion, but with the advent of universal access to heaps of data, the old ways of thinking are becoming less relevant. What we need is data and evidence; facts, not talk. Now you and I are from a country where it is a high good to let everybody have an 'opinion' (I dislike that word and the concept because opinions are like assholes: everybody's got one and most of them stink) about everything, but luckily we're now beginning to realize the detrimental effects of the excesses of that, and are curbing it. Many scientific fields are moving the same direction: less vacuous talk, more substance.
> How come the suicide rate in Africa is much lower (close to zero) than in Europe?
It isn't. Africa is a large continent. Some areas have higher suicide rates. Other areas have lower suicide rate. I've already posted a supporting link. I'm not sure where you get the idea that the rate of suicide in Africa is near zero.
I read somewhere that suicide is correlated with post-traumatic stress disorder. People who live in a constant state of trauma are unlikely to suicide, which is also why suicide rates are believed to go down during wars. That doesn't mean that people are happy, just that they are not killing themselves.
So, in general, the empirical evidence points to 'more money = more happiness'.
The literature on this spans decades, a 'popular' paper of the last few years that references much of the historical papers and as such can serve as a starting point is [Stevenson & Wolfers, 2008] (http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/betseys/papers/Happiness.pdf).
(a quote in the 'community' on this topic nowadays is (although I haven't been able to verify a source for it): "the average Togolese man would be hospitalised for depression in Denmark.").