I don't disagree with you there and I thought you made a valid observation higher in thread about how "If it's not working for you, get out" isn't always constructive advice or a feasible option. I will hazard that generally it is easier to change one's personal experience and surroundings than it is to change institutions and mass cookie-cutter treatment - however, the ease of a given option is not the only factor in whether it is the right/best/whatever option, or whether a person wants to choose that option at all.

For the happiness of the one, the answer is probably to shoot oneself up and out of lower circumstances to better treatment. For the happiness of the many, the answer is probably more likely to be forced (encouraged, whatever) environmental &/or institutional change. One kind of such group advocacy is a union, of course, though I'm sure there are many methods.

I am not sure though that an entire population can reach such satisfaction. Do some people have to be lower in order for others to enjoy the benefits they want? I suspect probably. I do believe all humans should be treated well and with respect, however, I do not believe that is where most humans' requirements for satisfaction end. In which case I wonder, how much lower - can a happy equilibrium be reached where no one is drastically down the an exaggerated bell curve and everyone is generally content? I think American society is a super drastic bell curve, and I'd like to believe such division is not necessary, helpful, or even good and etc. But I think it is not an easy thing, to try and convince people who have a very great lot, that they would be better off without their hoard and that helping others might yield more happiness.

It is hard to tell someone they should not have what they are accustomed to. We tend to hold on, simply because we are used to having.