Rorschach wrote:

I would argue a slightly different angle to that. Despite all the accusations thrown around not many people actively think about the origins of their goods and services (and thus whether they are keeping others "down"). What I see in this argument is the relative security each group enjoys compared to the other. The higher amount of perceived security, the more happiness (which doesn't apply to the Sunbelt. I'm sure that has some scientific reason like greater exposure to the sun minus cancer). But seriously, happiness is objective and I sure don't need Pew to tell me who has it and who doesn't. I'll leave that to Cosmo.

It's not complicated really. History is litered with examples of disparity in society and the ultimate manifestations of that. The US particularly faced that in the 20th century after WW2, as the rise of the upper middle class fueled 'white flight' and now you have at least 2 generations (arguably more) that have not had to work as hard to achieve ever greater 'success' (material goods primarily, but could be measured in other ways, such as spending power, capital accumulation, opportunity, etc). The effect was disenfranchising the poor, as the gap between low and higher castes widens within this population.

As the world globalizes more, this will just exacerbate. It's the same dynamic, except the gap is an order of magnitude greater (or 2, or 8). The difference between the poorest American and the richest Pakistani is pretty large, when you add up the access to services, resources, security, and opportunity. By the way, the poor American is favored in this equation. Still, you have a relatively small population in the world which is immensely powerful and placated (ie. Paris Hilton) and a very large and UNHAPPY population which is not. Whether they are unhappy because they see this dynamic or are living it is another matter entirely.

It's not a surprise that right leaning populations perceive themselves as 'happier'. I think if you conducted this research during any time in history, you'd get much the same answer (royalty, high castes, etc). People with a more conservative perspective generally have more command of resources in societies that are stable or even stagnant. However, that's unsustainable, since the lower castes tend to grow over time (error rate a la Matrix?).

I think we all know what happens when a great deal of poor restless people have decided they've had enough.

RE: Pew Research Center: Are We Happy Yet?