Social scientists have been trying to understand why some of the "happiest" people in the world (across "first" and "developing" economies even) are oftentimes of Hispanic origin. The general explanation that everything seems to point back to is basically that all of these cultures share extremely close ties and social support as the fundamental basis. This is in spite of all the poverty, violence, and general economic malaise that may be affecting us all.
What seems funnier is that even the "elite" seem to have trouble with this part, sometimes even because of their ambition and turning away many people.
So the clear goal to happiness to me is fundamentally "find people that you like and will support you and you will support them, and enjoy each others' company for the short time we do have on this planet. Inspire each other, love each other." This is regardless of whether you're a start-up founder in SF, drug addicted junkie in rural Honduras, or a housewife in Saudi Arabia.
I also disagree very much that everyone in the first world are "elites." Have you ever been to an Indian reservation in New Mexico? How about the backwoods of the Appalachians where there's still snake handler churches that hold services every Sunday at least? There's no running water in half of these places and transportation to the outside might be almost discouraged. Yet so many people will point and go "they're in the richest country in the world, they're PRIVILEGED!" and that's the same tired argument as saying that poor people in the West are "privileged" because they can afford a TV and electricity.
My point is really that your local conditions are EXTREMELY important regardless of what country you're in, period. Your social circles, your family, and even the people you hang out with online all affect you. And if you have none of these... that is rarely a recipe for happiness by anyone's definition aside from the most isolationist of worldviews.