The following is from an answer I wrote for this posting.  It also includes a related issue of what Romans 9:6ff means.   However, I will first write a theological paraphrase to show what I understand the text to mean:

In sum, Paul’s starts out with answering the question: “if not all Jews are saved, then is not God’s promise null and void?  God forbid! (v.6).  Do you not know that it is not biological lineage that makes one of the true Israel but the promise itself.  (v.6, 7). In fact, being the descent-seed of Abraham obviously does not bring about salvation, for from the beginning God was discriminating between the biological children—Isaac for example.  Let me repeat,” says Paul, “it is not biology [will of man or blood-heritage Jn. 1:13] that saves, but being part of the promise (v.8).  Another example of the promise being for some and not others, of God’s promise not being null and void, of the fact that not all Israel is Israel, are the children of Rebecca (v.10). This is even a better example since they were twins & neither had lived a life of moral choices, God chose one over the others, so that election outside of man’s choice might stand, so that works of righteousness cannot even be hinted at as part of salvation, for God call independent of works (v.11).  This is why God says that the older serves the younger and why he loved Jacob and hated Esau.” (v.12, 13). 

"You will surely contend: 'That's not fair!' But I tell you that God can do whatever He wills in heaven above and earth beneath.  If the previous proofs did not convince you, then consider Pharaoh..." (v.14ff.).

The original question was:  "Is it possible that God, knowing all things, would have chosen a certain person(s) to experience no or very little happiness or joy in his/her life?"

My answer:

 Although his life was better outwardly at the end of the book, he certainly went through much by God's permission (1:12).

See also:

Although this next person lived comfortably afterwards, for a while he was quite unhappy!:

Lastly, the (in)famous Romans 9: 

I cannot suppose a more miserable life than one outside the mercies of God. 

These are hard passages that I struggled with for years.  But I had to learn and submit to the fact that God's ways are not our ways, his thoughts are not our thoughts (Is. 55:8).

for His Kingdom,"

Someone took issue with my use of Romans 9.  Here is my defense:

Aaron: you stated: "I just wanted to repeat that this is not an example of God not being merciful to Esau. All it is - is that God was making a decision on which of the two boys the line of the promise would go through. He chose Jacob. This in no way means that God hated Esau - the man."

Unfortunately, you’ve crammed a number of assumptions that must be untangled for this discussion to go forward. First of all, you appear to separate mercy and promise.  Dealing only with the immediate context (setting aside the other biblical texts on “seed,” “mercy”, etc.), Paul opens this section of Romans with a lament: “For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren…”  This is another way of Paul saying “I wish my  Jewish (according to the flesh—biology) brothers were saved!”  He continues to outline the blessing of the covenant in which the Jews resided and which pointed to Christ, who came in the flesh: “…the promises; of whom are the fathers and from ^kwhom, according to the flesh, Christ came…” 

Paul does not separate mercy and promise. After the texts in question, Paul (still continuing the same idea) states: “So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.”  He does not miss a beat: he moves between promise and mercy.  And verse 30 he mentions faith in relation to the Gentiles (as even you believe that the Gentiles are “loved” by God).   In fact, he asserts (verse 11) that the choosing was by God’s “purpose” that election might stand, before they even chose good or evil, so that it would not be of works lest any man should boast! A clear idea of mercy.  This alone establishes the question of promise and mercy in the salvific sphere: whether collectively or individually, grace excludes works.

Secondly, it appears that your idea of promise is different than mine.  Romans 4:16 is part of the background of this passage; it ties promise to faith, Christ & seed: “Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law [biological Jews], but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.”  Of course, there are other Pauline passages on the promise, such as 2 Cor. 1:20 “For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us.” (Christ fulfills the OT promises), but that would take us down yet another bunny trail!

Thirdly, it also appear you have a different understanding of the word “hate”.  This is not unrelated to the points above.

Fourthly, you correctly point to Mal. 1:2-5.   Unfortunately, you are not clear in your exposition of Romans 9 in conjunction with Mal. 1. You stated above, “that God was making a decision on which of the two boys the line of the promise would go through. He chose Jacob.”  And then you state here that Romans 9 is about groups of people.  In fact, you do not harmonize the two points, but further entrench your group-position with a positive denial of any individual application: “choosing a group and not individuals.” 

On the one hand you assert that God chose between “two boys” (presumably individuals?) and “chose Jacob.”  On the other hand, you deny any “individual application”. 

As for myself, I believe Paul not only had Mal. 1 in mind but also Gen. 25:23ff from which the whole issue of the promise and the twins begins.  In fact, in either Mal. 1 or Gen. 25 are individual in mind at all? Yes, for the basis of the typological referent (nations/groups of people)—which I grant—is founded upon God’s differentiation of actual individuals.  The Gen. Prophecy/promise states that “two nations are in your womb.”  Who really believes that “literally”?  No, rather two real individual existed in her womb and they became not only types but biological fathers of the nations brought up latter in Malachi.  God chose one over the other. Period. (Further proof of God’s favor (individual application) is found in Jacob’s supplanting Esau’s birth-right—hence, the “older shall serve the younger”.)  In Mal. 1 itself, the differentiation begins with individuals and moves smoothly  into the groups.  Verse 2: “I have loved you," says the LORD. "Yet you say, 'In what way have You loved us?' Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" Says the LORD. "Yet Jacob I have loved…”  God’s proof of his collective love of Israel as a whole was His individual love of Jacob himself. 

Romans itself speaks of individuals before and after the text in question: Isaac & Pharaoh. Individual application flows from the individual illustrations.  In fact, Isaac as an individual is an illustration of Paul’s greater point that not all Israel is Israel, which itself implies an individual application: which Jew was not a real Jew? The ones who did not believe the promise Messiah to come.

Paul’s whole point in this particular section is a rebuttal to the Jews who claimed that biological lineage secures salvation and favor with God. Paul blows that out of the water through explanation of the life of the individuals of Israel’s past (cp. Abraham, Rom. 4).  God chose one over the other—both individually and by consequence of biological birth, groups.

Lastly, as I wind down a partial defense of my exegesis (other men such as John Murray or Hendrikson have done a better job), it must be pointed out that logically, to claim that this passage refers to a “group of people” only does not avoid the greater “problem” of God choosing some and not others.  Is it a good defense of free-will (the assumed background debate) to assert that God chose the Gentiles (having done neither good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls) as a “group of people” without their say-so? Indeed not.  For to chose entire groups (or nations) is to chose individuals on a larger scale.  The way out of this is to assert that the group in question is an empty set.  It is a mere abstraction.  Thus, God choosing the abstract, empty set of “Gentiles” is, on this premise, an act of grace!  God chose the fence for the sheep to reside in but not the sheep, which Christ claimed He knew by name. The sting of the indictment in verse 14 is lost as well: “What shall we say then? ^wIs there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!”

The previous arguments above apply to this question as well.  I will not belabor the point, especially since the medium is not always conducive to detailed argumentation.  Besides the classical passages of Ephesians 1, 2 Thess. 2:13, John 6:65, etc. others could be added to this debate.  But I will leave this to the readers to digest and recommend the traditional Reformed works: Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 10, Ten Points of Calvinism, or Predestination. 

At the end of the day, eternal, sovereign and gracious election must stand else everything else falls.  Not only does man’s depraved nature preclude any righteous movement of the will, even faith, but God’s predestination of all things is the necessary preconditions for reality: reasoning, science, art, etc.  Submission of our logical categories and thought-processes to the Word of God is a battle with the flesh.  We must follow the biblical passages and redefine our definitions.  Prayerfully, this small effort will challenge others to reconsider their role in their own salvation.

Soli Deo Gloria--To God Alone be the Glory