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.).