Comparison requires quantitative measurements, which, by definition, abstract things cannot have. However, happiness can be measured, it's nothing but a chemical reaction. In the test, it's also not truly measuring happiness, but responses to certain indicators, and their general opinion. Just as you can say, quite confidently, that an area with 50% deaths due to suicide is not a very happy place, you can measure happiness in some form, in an unprecise manner.

Studies done on excess of choice suggest that in countries with a lot of choice, people report to be less happy. This is because people are less happy with their choice if they can pick from one of many instead of one of a few.

This really just means that people are more happy when they don't need to think as much, validating the phrase "ignorance is bliss."

If we value self-reported happiness and believe that we should strive to make it a norm, we would really make it so that people don't have much choice.

Clinical Depression goes up with developed nations. Clinical Depression is a first-world problem.

Today, there are scientific means of dealing with depression.

Of course, people aren't happy when living in completely shit conditions, either.

Studies seeing the happiness of people by country find that South American and Caribbean (and even middle eastern) countries are happier than Western countries. Yet their standard of living and overall wealth are not as great.

The reasoning, to me, is that these countries have less of a consumer based economy and more of a government based society. When people are given the power to control the market, they are naturally less satisfied with whatever they get, even if the products are better (see how even Japan, one of the most technologically advanced countries is very low in the scale). Now, if we measured standard of living by physical means (like progressed medicine, technology and access to these medicines and technology), we would assume that the happiest countries are NOT from higher standards of living.

It then comes down to first-world problems. It sucks to live in a shitty country with NO resources, but excess of choice can lead people to never be satisfied with the goods and services that are easily accessible to them.

Something common with Jamaican and Cuban immigrants is that they are looking to either start a business or get some work. In Cuba, the government provides most necessities and makes it very hard to simply start a business. In Jamaica, there seems to be a more laid back attitude where starting a business is met with many barriers and lack of motivation from the surrounding residence. They do not need to work and start a business, so they don't, and they're fine with that.

Immigrants who move to the United States aren't satisfied with that way of life. Some regret it, finding the laid-back and less demanding world of Cuba and Jamaica to have been better, but most prefer it.

Now, this doesn't exactly mean that most people are like hard-working immigrants (especially Americans who take the benefits of Westernized society for granted). Sort of Nietzsche's herd theory, that people just want to be dependent, and the few who want to be independent end up taking control of those who want to be dependent.

In conclusion, I'd say that whether these reports are VERY TRUE to their level of happiness, it is NOT because they have a higher standard of living. It is because they don't need to work as hard in order to live in society. In the States, employment is practically mandatory to get by, but employment leads to opportunity for expanding your own wealth and resources far beyond the provided for "middle-class" of the less capitalistic countries. This is why you can see people in ghettos using iPods.

If people live a simpler life, they don't care as much for the material that doesn't even exist as much in their society.

Maybe Marx was right, though. Materialism plagues us instead of benefits us.

Self-reported happiness isn't abstract, you can measure it.

A Dane is incapable of measuring his happiness in Denmark if he hasn't anything to which to compare it. He may find life in Canada or Switzerland to be more to his liking, were he only to experience life therein.

but I have to believe it takes a backseat to other important factors such as availability of life necessities.

Availability of necessities is truly all one needs to be happy. The issue then comes when resources are no longer a necessity and most of what we are going after are just wants, which adapt. Commercialism, if you will. Once again pertaining to Marx.

Yes, but the survey doesn't measure clinical depression it measures self-reported happiness.

Yes, but if one is clinically depressed, they do not identify themselves as happy.

It does NOT measure self-reported happiness. So it's not very relevant.

I apologize, wrong argument. I got carried away. Disregard the study as a dispute. I find it relevant when it comes to how we measure happiness, but it was not proper to dispute your claim with that study.

Naturally, the rest of what I had to say has little to do with what you were saying.

Otherwise, I still find it inefficient to truly measure happiness. It's a concept, belief, and feeling. Very subjective and bound by preconceived notions and cultural relativism.

'Tis asinine to assert that there exists such a thing as "National Happiness" when happiness is a quality possessed at the individual level. To claim that there can be an "average" happiness applicable to all people is absurd.