Things being shitty isnt about the cushioned chairs or AC or Antibiotics that separates us from the metaphorical jealous kings of yore. Its the isolation from power and the denial of a seat at the table. It's the fact that we do have all these comforts and that they're disposable, and we still have people that can't afford these comforts because the capitalists at the top don't want to let any of us anywhere near them. We make enough food globally to feed everyone and we'll just dump perfectly edible food because having too much product on the market will lower prices too much. The kings of yore didnt have the luxury of being so isolated from the rest of their society that they were untouchable, peasant revolts were extremely effective throughout much of human history. If the peasants under a king's watch were starving, well that king typically wasn't long for the world, but we now we get to have news about the ass ugly Abercrombie and Fitch CEO boasting that they burn excess clothes instead of donating it or even just throwing them in the trash because he doesnt want ugly poors painting the brand with their ugly poorness and its met with... nothing... nothing of subatance anyway. Just handwringing articles about how immoral and shallow it is and then articles complaining about how that's just capitalism bay-bee cope harder.

You contradict (or at least leave in a hard place) your first line saying suffering is subjective and then explaining why our current state of affairs means we are better off now. How can we be better off, I assume living happier lives with less suffering, if suffering is subjective?

If it is subjective, then maybe a 19th century woman (without many rights, without technology and in a monotonous life) felt more fulfilled and more joyful and more curious of her own life and less unfortunate than a woman today with all her rights, technology, free time, etc. And apply that to all individuals and you might find that maybe 18th century England was happier than 21st century England. Add religion to the equation, which gave them faith and hope even facing hardships; add the way they didn't know all we do now (like the Epstein Files, the way colonization and imperialism work, etc.); add that they didn't live overstimulated as often (e g., not so many opportunities to get addictions) or isolated (community was stronger then). Then maybe the happier 18th century is real. Then maybe you are right about suffering being subjective. And, if so, "progress" (about this) is a myth and new technology or food or money does not equal happiness.

But if you believe we should be happier and, if studies about this could be done, you believe that we should indeed find that we are happier today because "objective" or measurable benefits and privileges should equal more happiness and less suffering, then suffering is not that subjective, it has an obvious relation to these things you mentioned (long lifespans, shelter, healthcare, luxuries, etc.).