T A B L E__T A L K When supposed safeguards wreak havoc: Readers discuss the pros and cons of rent control in the Business and Personal Finance area of Table Talk   Search for business, personal finance and more at barnesandnoble.com Search by:  Keyword Title Author   R E C E N T L Y Van Gogh Inc. By Larry Kanter You've seen the paintings. Now buy the lunch box (02/12/99) House flash By Heather Chaplin If you're struck with the biological urge to own a home, consider first whether it's a good time to buy (02/05/98) The Jordan Effect: What's race got to do with it? By Leon Wynter The colorblind world depicted by Madison Avenue isn't our racial reality yet -- but it's a step in the right direction (01/29/99) E-commerce: Don't believe the hype By Heather Chaplin Online shopping leaves me frustrated, bored and feeling like a schmo (01/22/98) Help! I have portfolio deficit disorder! By Daren Fonda My life fell apart after I discovered I could my check my stock's earnings and losses online -- whenever I wanted (01/15/99) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Reluctant Capitalist archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Salon Columnists		EPIDEMIC OF EXTRAVAGANCE | PAGE 1, 2, 3 - - - - - - - - - - He points to numerous studies that show how humans have an amazing ability to adapt even to the best of circumstances. Lottery winners, for example, don't report being happier several years after claiming their prizes. Likewise, there's no data to suggest that hypothetical society A, where everyone lives in 4,000-square-foot homes, is any happier than hypothetical society B, where everyone has a 3,000-square-foot house, Frank says. Adding 1,000 square feet to your home would probably make you happy temporarily, but as time went by, you'd get used to it, and any residual positive effects would fade. On the other hand, these studies suggest that people don't ever acclimate themselves to certain environmental factors, such as high noise levels -- in fact, people living next to highways complained about the noise more after living with it for one year then when they first moved in -- or driving through congested traffic. The latter, in particular, seems to cause increasingly high levels of stress and even disease. The average home built in the United States today is twice as big as in the 1950s, and, as has certainly been pointed out before "Luxury Fever," we work longer hours, commute greater distances and spend less time with our loved ones to pay for the increase. Considering the evidence in Frank's book, this trade-off begins to seem incredibly self-defeating. High levels of personal wealth are good for a healthy nation, Frank concludes, but the real benefits come from spending those riches in ways that "appear to create significant and lasting improvements in well-being." If gold hubcapped Rolls Royces did that, then fine, Frank seems to be saying -- but they don't. His studies show we derive little long-term happiness from fancy cars and big houses, and a significant amount of lasting pleasure from leisure time and an active family life. It's hard, therefore, not to conclude we'd be better off reversing our priorities -- using our resources to, say, build a high-speed public transportation system rather than gigantic homes. So why don't we? Of course, at the heart of Frank's book is that he is playing with two scales of satisfaction that more and more have been relegated to two distinct spheres. Individual happiness is the job of the individual and driven by the engine of free market happiness. If we want to become happier, the presiding assumption is that we probably need a little more buying power and a little more financial security. Societal happiness is the job of the government, and that's why we're willing to pay taxes and obey laws to contribute to the collective good. But what makes Frank's argument so persuasive is that he focuses on studies about individual happiness, showing how our own biological and social assumptions about wealth lead us away from the obvious solution. This is where the book really starts to get interesting. Frank discusses at length the competitive nature of our longing for wealth and its accompanying accouterments. According to one of the many studies he cites, the majority of us would choose to earn $50,000 while others made $25,000, rather than earn $100,000 while others made $250,000. Nimbly jumping between academic disciplines, Frank dives into evolutionary psychology to postulate that part of this is a result of our biological hard wiring -- the drive to survive has mutated in civilized society into the drive to succeed. Instead of deriding us as petty and mean-spirited, he effectively argues that the citizen born without an interest in relative position would be like a male elk without antlers. Consider the job applicant. Should he refrain from buying an expensive suit because ultimately it's a waste of resources, even though looking affluent and sharp may help his chances of landing a job? Or house-hunting parents. Should they choose a more modest home, although it could mean sacrificing a good school district, which is important to their children's future? N E X T+P A G E | Short-antlered elk always finish last - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Become a Salon member. Click here.