Hey Mo, thanks so much!

I don't have a particularly strong view on this.

I guess:

First, there are differences in the metrics used – the life satisfaction (0-10) is more granular than the 4 category response questions. 

Additionally, the plot from OWID, a lot of the data seems quite short-term – e.g., 10 years or so. Easterlin always emphasises that the paradox is across the whole economic cycle, but a country might experience continuous growth in the space of a decade.

My overall view – several happiness economists I've spoken to basically think the Easterlin Paradox is correct (at least, to be specific: self-reported national life satisfaction is flat in the long-run), so I defer to them.

haha, yes, people have done this! This is called 'vignette-adjustment'. You basically get people to read short stories and rate how happy they think the character is. There are a few potential issues with this method: (1) they aren't included in long-term panel data; (2) people might interpret the character's latent happiness differently based on their own happiness

All good. Easy to tie yourself in knots with this ...

Hi Zachary, yeah, see the other comment I just wrote. I think stretching could plausibly magnify or attenuate the relationship, whilst shifting likely wouldn't. 

While I agree in principle, I think the evidence is that the happiness scale doesn't compress at one end. There's a bunch of evidence that people use happiness scales linearly. I refer to Michael Plant's report (pp20-22 ish): https://wellbeing.hmc.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/2401-WP-A-Happy-Probability-DOI.pdf

Thanks for this example, Geoffrey. Hm, that's interesting! This has gotten a bit more complicated than I thought.

It seems: 

1. Surprisingly, scale stretching could lead to attenuation or magnification depending on the underlying relationship (which is unobserved)

Let h be latent happiness; let LS be reported happiness. 

Your example:

$P\left(h\right)=0.40-h/100$

$t=1,h\equiv LS=>dP/dLS=-1/100$

$t=2,h=2LS=>dP/dh\ast dh/dLS=2\ast -1/100=-1/50$

So yes, the gradient gets steeper. 

Consider another function. (This is also decreasing in h)

$P\left(h\right)=1/h$ 

$t=1,h=LS=>dP/dLS=dh/dLS=dP/dh\ast dh/dLS=-1/h^2\ast 1=-1/\left(L{S}^2\right)$

$t=2,h=2LS=>dp/dLS=dP/dh\ast dh/dLS=-1/h^2\ast 2=-2/\left(4L{S}^2\right)=-1/\left(2L{S}^2\right)$

i.e., the gradient gets flatter. 

2. Scale shifting should always lead to attenuation (if the underlying relationship is negative and convex, as stated in the piece)

Your linear probability function doesn't satisfy convexity. But, this seems more realistic, given the plots from Oswald/Kaiser look less than-linear, and probabilities are bounded (whilst happiness is not).

Again consider:

$P\left(h\right)=1/h$

T=1: LS = h => P(h) =1/LS

T=2: LS = h-5 <=> h = LS+5 => P(h) = 1/(LS+5)

Overall, I think the fact that the relationship stays the same is some weak evidence against shifting – not stretching. FWIW, in the quality-of-life literature, shifting occurs but little stretching. 

Sorry – this is unclear. 

"If people are getting happier (and rescaling is occuring) the probability of these actions should become less linked to reported LS"

This means, specifically, a flatter gradient (i.e., 'attenuation') – smaller in absolute terms. In reality, I found a slightly increasing (absolute) gradient/steeper. I can change that sentence.

I could imagine thinking about "people don't settle for half-good any more" as a kind of increased happiness

This feels similar to Geoffrey's comment. It could be that it takes less unhappiness for people to take decisive life action now. But, this should mean a flatter gradient (same direction as rescaling)

And yeah, this points towards culture/social comparison/expectations being more important than absolute £.

Thanks a lot for this. I hadn't actually come across these terms; that's super useful. I'll have to read  both these articles when I get a chance, will report back.

Hi Geoffrey,

Thank you!

It's possible that these 3 exit actions have gotten easier to do, over time. Intuitively, though, this would be pushing in the same direction as rescaling: e.g., if getting a divorce is easier, it takes less unhappiness to push me to do it. This would mean the relationship should (also) get flatter. So, still surprising, that the relationship is constant (or even getting stronger). 

Hey Eugene, interesting stuff! 

1) Long-term AI is very likely a complement; short-term, it may be a substitute”

I wonder why you think this?

2) "Good evidence suggests AI benefits the already skilled"

I feel like the evidence here is quite mixed: e.g., see this article from the economist: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/02/13/how-ai-will-divide-the-best-from-the-rest

If we treat digital minds like current animal livestock, the expected value of the future could be really bad.