Have actually doubled in value over the past six years and gone, real estate is over half to record their best decade ever. Market news, the machine that brings real estate, seems to be doing its job well. But is it? Once a job was generally agreed to be doing people better. Nowadays, this is not so clear. Some real estate agents somehow supported a growing number of professionals who consider real estate purchased to do something else: make people happy.
Given that real estate should be more than just money, it has been held in Europe for decades. And now the concept of "well-being" behind real capital assets sprouted in North America too, catering specifically to the prosperity of children's books. Much of this draws on the upstart science of happiness, which blends psychology with economics. Its attachments cite significant evidence, which usually shows some unexpected results: a rich report is happier than the poor. However, there is a paradox that requires clarification: wealthy countries, taken as a whole, have not become much happier as real estate has appreciated and people have grown richer.
The science of happiness offers two explanations for the paradox. Capitalism points out that he is talented to turn to luxury and, as a result, come to the masses that the elites have always enjoyed. But that's how people come to take things that are once desirable from a distance. The homes they never thought they might be needed as they can't be without. In this way, consumers are stuck on a treadmill: when they reach a better standard of living, they are dissatisfied with their satisfaction.
Add all this to the fact that many things that most prizes – such as exclusive addresses – are essential luxuries. For example, private courts cease to be so if it is granted to everyone. These "local products", as they are called (referrals to local abilities), are solid: you can only enjoy them if others do not. The amount and effort required to catch them depends on how much your competitors are placing.
All this divides some dubious soldiers into economics. The science of economics, especially as it applies to capitalism, asserts that people know their own interests and are best left to bear in mind their own business. How much they work and what they buy is their own case. But the new science of happiness is much less willing to delay people's choices. In 1930, John Maynard Keynes imagined that richer communities would be leisured, as people would have more time to enjoy the finest things in life. But most people still find it hard to afford things that make them happy. They also seek a higher place in the community and purchase commodities such as expensive homes, and by making them even harder and have less leisurely time at their disposal.
If consumer growth through consumerism does not make people happy, then stagnation will be difficult. Ossified communities guard the status of products even more jealous. A flowering economy creates opportunities, which then bring happiness to a certain extent. It's hard to say that most people were unhappy about the heyday of the real estate crisis.
Finding the real estate market or, to the extent, the entire capitalist system to blame for not bearing joy and growth is putting too much strain on them. For many to do well is not enough: They want to do better than their peers and this competition creates anxiety very deeply.
Real estate can make people feel good and the result is that you can choose to be as unhappy as he wants. Asking more about it would be to ask too much.