I am curious on the studies on how they measured. People on different places on the survival pyramid must have been a consideration.

I think the point retube was trying to reference is that studies have shown that people vastly overestimate the magnitude and duration of changes in happiness due to a windfall or catastrophe (the most recent source I have for this is Dan Ariely's Upside of Irrationality). While there is a shift of overall life satisfaction, major changes are much less impactful to your long-term happiness than you would predict (presumably due to growing familiarity, adaptation, and the general "the grass is greener" bias we all have).

At any rate, I, specifically, would be happier without reading personally-attacking rebuttals on HN. Is that really needed to make your point?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100701072652.ht...

"A worldwide survey of more than 136,000 people in 132 countries included questions about happiness and income, and the results reveal that while life satisfaction usually rises with income, positive feelings don't necessarily follow, researchers report."

And some further recent research on the matter reviewed here:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-money-b...

Basically - increasing wealth makes you immune to the smaller/simpler joys in life.

From the paper you quoted, this was also in the abstract:

"HIV prevalence in Africa has little effect on Africans’ life or health satisfaction"

which actually supports my other assertion that those with disabling diseases or conditions are no less happy than those more fortunate (assuming you equate life-satisfaction with happiness).