Indeed. For example, look at what Cubans are willing to go through to get out of Cuba: a high risk of dying on a voyage, and an large suicide rate.

Using statistics from the Cuban Health Ministry and Donate-Armada's own study of suicides in 1984, when she was working for the Health Ministry, the study argues that the island's people have been emotionally shattered since the failure of President Fidel Castro's plans for a record 10 million ton sugar harvest in 1970.

``It was the first break in the collective conscience regarding the revolution's ability to provide coherent answers to economic problems,'' said Donate-Armada, a psychologist who left Cuba in 1993.

The island's suicide rate nearly tripled after that catastrophe, from 8 per 100,000 people in 1969 to 23.2 per 100,000 in 1982, the study reported.

So bad was the crisis that in 1979 the government classified suicide statistics as state secrets, the study added, and began hiding them under other categories like ``violent deaths'' or ``other unclassified physiological illnesses.''

http://www.fiu.edu/~fcf/suicidepidemic.html

According to the WHO, in 1996, Cuba's suicide rate was 24.5 per 100,000 for men and 12.0 in 100,000 for women.

For comparison, in US the figures are 17.9 per 100,000 per year for men, and 4.2 per 100,000 per year for women.

http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suicider...

However, one should keep in mind Cuba is an atheist state, while in US many people are more religious, which could lead to underreporting.

In response to this and raghus, I can't help but think checking where people are moving to is more of a marketing test than relevant information about happiness.

What do you mean by "marketing"?

It is very patronizing to assume people make decisions that aren't in their best interest. You can certainly point to lots of irrational behavior, but generally people move to where their lives will be easier.

The biggest problem with happiness research is that there is no objective measure of happiness, and claims are relative. Poor in a village in Thailand = happy. Poor outside LA = unhappy.

Its a matter of information.

During the War Between the States, the Lincoln government spread rumors in Ireland and other European countries that the streets in America were literally paved with gold. When impoverished immigrants showed up on Ellis Island, they were offered a choice between slaves wages in factories, and the draft.

Without complete information, people don't always make the best decisions.

People make decisions that they think are in their best interest, even if those decisions aren't actually in their best interest.

People move to where they think their lives will be easier.

It's a fact that the average person in Portugal would be in the bottom quintile in the US. You can make more money as a migrant farmer in California than you can as a white collar worker in Mexico, let alone the rest of Latin America.

So in the case of immigration to the US, the things they think match reality. This is actually a great example of people doing things they think are in their best interest that actually are.

Dang, I tried 4 different ways to counter that but I ended up disagreeing with myself. I think the "what they think is best but isn't" is a bigger issue with the moves people don't make - ie staying in an economically depressed town or country instead of moving somewhere you'd be better off. I have family that resisted moving to a big city for years because it was so expensive, then when they finally moved they couldn't believe how many jobs there were and how well they paid.

I'm pretty sure there is a psychological model for "activation energy" on making a decision that changes the status quo. Deciding not to X a lot easier than deciding to X. Hopefully someone who knows more about this can elaborate.

On the issue of cities vs. suburban, people drastically undervalue the increased variety and choice in cities. Economically speaking, wine is wine - despite the fact that a wine store with 1000 varieties is better than a corner store with 5. The rub is that this kind of value is difficult to account for.

City vs suburbs is a whole different story. I was talking about big metro area vs small town of 30K several hours from an airport.

I'd move back to the city in a second if I could afford it. The $/sqft is the reason we left. Kind of tough when there are 5 people living off my salary (me, wife, 2 kids, mother-in-law).

I want to move to the US but it's against US law. I don't see that as "fucked," however, but just a country choosing its own immigration policies.

I meant illegal to emigrate, not immigrate. But I actually do consider US immigration policy to be pretty fucked up.

Naturally enough, the "New citizenships (per capita) (most recent) by country" is lead by Canada, a country with very a very open immigration policy. Likewise, Japan, which makes it very difficult for foreigners to nationalize, is near the bottom of the list.

Do you know where to find that data?

I sometimes see graphs in magazines like The Economist or National Geographic. Generally speaking, it takes a bit of work to get this kind of data from governments