Dilemma: Embrace Wage Stagnation or Deny Science

And now look at this.  An open comment box with a semi-intelligent comment (qualification for the "semi" below)!  Here's "Northern Hick's" comment from Dilbert.com:

Challenge the premise, Dilbert. A study proving that more money =/= more happiness does not establish that a raise would not net positive happiness, particularly cast against the alternative of wage stagnation. (Moreover, such statistics are not necessarily descriptive of individual cases, even assuming that the study's results are generally corroborated by other comparable studies.)

i.e. It may well be true that I'm just as happy as - or happier than - I would be if I were making twice as much money, but the absence of positive career progress, including an improving income, would make me pretty miserable.

But perhaps more importantly, it may well be the case that more money wouldn't make all you suckers happy, because you really care more for things like interpersonal connections, respect of yourself and others, and other such nonsense, whereas I recognize that there's nothing more important than material wealth, and therefore would be happy as a pig in mud if I had a swimming pool filled with money... [Northern Hick in this last paragraph goes off the rails, assuming that happiness must mean pleasure, and animal pleasure at that.  But if happiness is best understood as well-being or flourishing, then Mo Money could certainly mean Mo Problems.]