No, it's pretty simple really: we adapt. We're amazingly flexible creatures and have a knack for adjusting to our conditions, whatever they may be; for 'better'

No, it's pretty simple really: we adapt. We're amazingly flexible creatures and have a knack for adjusting to our conditions, whatever they may be; for 'better' or 'worse'. We actively re-adjust our perspective of the world to balance ourselves. If you grew up under impoverished conditions, that would be your default line, and if you then became 'rich' afterwards, you would probably be happy for an amount of time proportional to the amount of time you spent miserable. But if growing up under 'well-off' conditions, that will be your default line, and objectively speaking, you'd need a lot more to be happy/thankful than the person who started off in a lower position than you, just because you adapted to your living conditions that well. That being said, tradition/values/morals/etc are all a part of our environments just as much as our pay checks. This strong ability to adapt to our environments is what helped us survive so well; unfortunately, it's also the same trait that makes us treat bills like they were saber-tooth tigers. EDIT: To clarify, I dislike 'first-world problem' rants as much as anybody else, but the problem isn't the people writing them. The problem is right there in the name of it: the "first-world".