tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-168105775087280288.post5276121735647108883..comments2010-09-23T09:20:42.616-07:00Jules Evanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06667693426787755411noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-168105775087280288.post-50680680920517554862010-09-23T09:20:42.616-07:002010-09-23T09:20:42.616-07:00The sampling method might account for the straight line, as you suggest. &quot;We interviewed 1004 average, well-adjusted Americans at every income level, to see how happy they were.&quot; LOL.<br /><br />Security word: predivan. <br /><br />Wow, a drug designed to counteract mistaken assumptions.GTChristiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14390368105725901371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-168105775087280288.post-52810031261730362982008-11-17T11:56:00.000-08:002008-11-17T11:56:00.000-08:00not sure about this jules. Happiness and GDP data cease to be linked to each other in the 50's and 60's in most developed nations so you could argue that its (with a time lag) the effect of rampant positional corporate consumer capitalism that has led to delinking of growth and wellbeing or that we just got rich enough by the 50/60's and from then on growth was uneconomic. Not sure you can say that wellbeing didn't ,pve throughout keynesianismjuleshttp://www.citizenrenaissance.comnoreply@blogger.com