They don't have less wealth though. The people you seem to be referring to with that people are simply people with less technology. They have plenty of wealth such as big families, lots of land, good health, talents, beauty, brain power, etc.

So you missed my whole point about non-monetary wealth? Or was the picture thrown in for some other reason?

People with less wealth and equal suffering can be more happy then others because their expectations are lower.

But are they more happy? I doubt it. If a person truly has less wealth but equal suffering then they have lower highs. So how exactly would they be more happy than a person with higher highs? Expectations may play a role but if everyone wants the best life possible then to get more of the best life is to meet more of those expectations and to have more total wealth means it's easier to get more of the best life?

E.g. I don´t look like a model, but on the other hand, I have not the expecations to find a partner which is smart AND looks like a model. Maybe a stupid example, but you get the point. Or think about people in developing countries. Their t is incredibly low compared to ours,

This is where I disagree with you the most and where I think you are most confused. I don't think people in developing countries have less t. In fact they have more t because there are more people in their countries, and the populations are younger too in some cases. So it really depends on the developing country but I don't see any advantage with regard to total wealth based only on that.

A person born in a developing country could for example be smarter, more athletic, better looking, have a bigger social support network, have better weather, and then how can we say this person has less total wealth than a person born in the United States who isn't as smart, as good looking, or as athletic?

There are 7 billion people in the world and most of the people are in the developing countries which means most of t should be in those countries too. That said I do think being born in the United States can contribute to t for example if a person can leverage the advantages it brings but I do not think it's something people realize until after they get a passport and travel around.

but I bet some will consider themselves as very happy, because they do not expect the fancy stuff we do. E.g. a new pair of shoes or whatever make them very happy for some time.

But they have bigger families and can do other stuff which gives them the equivalent feelings. So you mention shoes which is material but that is a very westernized way of thinking about it. In a village maybe they collect other stuff than shoes but maybe in the city in developed countries where families are smaller we have to buy a bunch of shoes to fill the void?

So if we are talking about a person being able to buy 20 cars then yeah in the developed countries this is easier. But then does 20 cars even get used? And it leads to the problem that eventually you buy enough cars that you don't get a high from owning a new car anymore which is the point some make with the $75,000 or so limit because material wealth (money can buy material objects) doesn't substitute for everything.

So people who have less material wealth might have more of everything else and we might actually be living poorer lives. That would explain why people with material wealth (but not much else) can be miserable compared to some people with very little material wealth (but everything else).