Once you factor in that the only 'self' that may feel happiness is the 'experiencer', not the narrated 'self', you're getting quite close to a core tenet of Buddhism…
And, unsurprisingly, you also get conclusions that it's time to stop the confusion between greed and the pursuit of happiness. Like it or not, it's time to recognise that greed is unwholesome (i.e. 'unhelpful' in relation to the cessation of suffering).
No matter how much you think you're satisfied with your life (by whatever societal metric you've been educated in), the mental fabrication doesn't actually satiate, nor satisfy, the 'experiencing' you.
Yes, it's possible to tell yourself a different story, but this will not change the (measurable) experience.
The 'funny' part is: many who 'intellectually' know so, will continue the rat race right after reading this or after listening to the 20' video. Just like many millionaires in the TED audience will continue seeking millions, regardless of the fact that money above $60k p.a. doesn't buy one any comfort against the suffering from lust, aversion and ignorance (wealth simply replaces the objects of lust, aversion and ignorance by other objects; it doesn't address their cessation). What does it take for people to step out of detrimental habits?
What does it take for educated wealthy people to admit that science proves they're hurting themselves, wasting their life/time, hence that they should very seriously consider a different course of action?
If educated people deny science —while imagining themselves differently (e.g. because they accept Darwinism, as if this alone allowed to then reject other results from behavioural sciences if these results go against one's prejudices),— what does it take?
The imaginary 'self', the narrative of one's life, does not experience, does not feel the pangs of lust, aversion and ignorance. How long before one stops favouring such a non-sentient 'self', to refocus on the sentient being one is?
Click on image to continue:
The riddle of experience vs. memory