The whole article is really poor in my opinion. It ostensibly tries to disprove (or get you to believe that some research disproves) previous research that earn

The whole article is really poor in my opinion. It ostensibly tries to disprove (or get you to believe that some research disproves) previous research that earnings beyond $75K per annum in 1st world countries does not make people happier. To do this, it shows 2 graphs where 99% (my approximation) of the data points are for 2nd world countries or 1st world countries with earnings below 64K. To prove their thesis (and disprove the previous research), they would've needed straight lines for 1st world countries that continue straight up between 64K and 128K. There is only one that I would say looks statistically significant (USA), but it is balanced by one that definitely looks like its not straight (could be Japan). In the second graph, I am very skeptical of how they determine where that line bends. If you ignore their lines, you could draw a straight line through the data points. By what statistical method did they determine that a bent line approximated the data better and that this particular bent line was the best. Essentially, saying that this data should be represent by a bent line instead of a straight one seems like an economist's trick. And in the end, the author trots out the 75K figure and pretty much agrees with it. The income redistribution statement is odd but further proof: taxing the rich (above 64K) and "giving" it to the those below 64K would have the biggest happinss effect. About all I take away from this article is that Brazil and Mexico have the happiest inhabitants on very low wages.