For these sorts of questions, the water is very muddy in the US, due to the proliferation of consumer goods. That's the thing that happens in a rich society; pe

For these sorts of questions, the water is very muddy in the US, due to the proliferation of consumer goods. That's the thing that happens in a rich society; people who are unhappy for social and economic reasons (shitty health coverage, unable to afford ridiculous housing/higher education costs) are still able to buy a lot of trinkets which, of course, fail to deliver on the hedonic promise. Rich is definitely better than poor, but clutter does not equate to wealth, and often makes a person worse off rather than happier. Someone might be unhappy because of his mediocre health coverage (even the insured are screwed), low occupational autonomy, meager two weeks' vacation allowance, inability to reach the level of stability necessary to responsibly procreate, et al. He's 35 and not really poor; he has enough discretionary income to buy a $30,000 SUV-- which would be considered a luxury outside of the US (in Europe, because of the high gas prices moreso than the cost of the car). He does this to procure "happiness". It fails him (he returns to baseline) after three weeks. Why did he buy it? Because he lacks the power to make meaningful improvements to his life, whereas trinkets are cheap. "Consumption" is a poor predictor of happiness because most consumptive activity is utterly devoid of hedonic value. On the other hand, increased security and autonomy would make people legitimately happier.