From the author's tweets:<p>This new paper actually makes conclusions that are the opposite of what their own data shows:<p>> <i>Two things to note here. (1) the x-axis is logarithmic. There's a HUGE difference in income between the rightmost points. (2) the y-axis spans a TINY effect size. And TINY / HUGE = EVEN TINIER. 3/7</i><p>> <i>A randomly sampled highest-income participant ($480.000) would have </i>lower* well-being than a randomly sampled lowest-income participant ($15.000) 25% and 33% of the time for the two outcome measures. Income explains 1.5% and 4% of the variance. 5/7*<p>* <a href="https://twitter.com/jonaslindeloev/status/1353834264756965377" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/jonaslindeloev/status/135383426475696537...</a>