What is more satisfying to humans - things in comparison or in absolute? Many believe that the relative achievements are much more important to us and generate more happiness. Multiple researchers have suggested this e.g. when students at a top b-school were asked what scenario would they prefer to be in - earning $200k while your batch mates make $100k or earning $300k while batch mates make $400k and an overwhelming majority chose the first scenario. This may be surprising to some but this is not the case of a single, selfish or jealous person but seems to be the general behavior of so called rational humans. Moreover, we can see so many examples of this phenomenon at play around us. Does clocking a 10.5 seconds for a 100 meter dash in a winning race of national athletics championship feel more exuberant or clocking 10.0 in Olympics and finish last?
If this is true, then why do people migrate from low earning societies to high earning ones. Leaving aside the case of forced migration due to war, famine or fear for life, here I am referring to voluntary, economic migration with sheer motive of better earning (and lifestyle?). E.g. migration from Bihar to Mumbai or Punjab, from Gujarat to US or Punjab to Canada and Australia. None of these places are at war or suffering from famine and none of these people are running away for their life.
A person living in top 10 percentile of income in their own 'home' is tempted to go to a society where he is most likely to be in the bottom 50%. A better lifestyle? May be. But more satisfaction or happiness? Apparently not. Then what drives such behavior, generation after generation? If getting pulled down in the social income hierarchy does really give unhappiness then why don't people move back to their happier pasts? If inertia is the reason, then why didn't the inertia stop them in the first place from migrating? Aren't we humans such a mysterious creature!
