I also find stuff makes me happier than experiences, so I realize I'm not representative of current fashionable lifestyles, but pretending everyone's the same or telling people "you shouldn't want that" isn't a practical policy solution.
(Or let's talk about medicine. Can we grow new livers, kidneys, etc, yet? How about when can we do it cheaply enough to easily be able to afford one for everyone who needs one?)
To put it in perspective, hundreds of millions of families of 4 and more live in non-well-layed out 330sqft and 450sqft apartments in the developing world, to which a couple or a family of 3 living in a fairly-well-layed-out apartment with our modern trimmings would seem like a dream.
Current fashionable lifestyles? The idea of earthly possessions not being the source of true happiness (and really being the reason for suffering) is as old as at least Buddhism. If you want just an American source, we're still talking Thoreau, here.
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2010/04/10/5-reliable-...
Also, if you look at the lives of people that inherent lot's of money they tend to do the higher versions of the same kind of things. It's like throw a party with great music, vs throw a party with a live band when what makes a party fun is not the music it's the people there.
People quickly become accustomed to any new positive thing introduced into their lives, make that the baseline and then start wanting something better.
The minimal stuff threshold is about survival and homeostasis, once that is achieved, anything beyond that does not produce lasting gains in happiness.
Having a computer with internet connection can increase happiness. For example elderly that feel more connected with their families. The important thing is the minimum threshold is a computer, so a 200$ laptop can fill this need just as well as a 10,000$ laptop.
Further, in that case it's connecting to people that's bringing happiness not the physical device.
NIMBY has many reasons behind it, and one of them is trying to increase housing values. Other things are guarding precious "free" parking spaces, being old and not liking change, or being afraid of changes effecting the quality of your children's school and other things.
My personal reason for being NIMBY is pretty simple though: I just want to sleep at night. and since municipal rules are hardly ever enforced in high density areas, I'll have to deal with kids screaming, idiot drunks trashing the place at 3 am, graffiti and people having parties at all hours of the night and day with the cops telling me to just deal with it because I live in a high density area. So when they try to build more on top, I'm like "Err, no".
I literally dont care if my property value dropped to zero, as long as I can sleep without needing earplugs. I already have to run the A/C or heat twice as much as I should because I can't open the windows without "enjoying" whatever activity my neighbors are doing that involve screaming on top of their lungs.
Besides, I live in one of the top 10 most densely populated neighborhoods in the country, and then people want to add more. ::shrugs::
In my home country this was not an issue because people could respect each other, and rules were enforced. In that case, build as much as you want in my backyard.
It sounds like you came from a nice, civilized country. Why then did you move to whatever 3rd-world hellhole you currently live in? It sounds like you'd be happier going back home.
The real issue is that the ruling class makes their money off capital. That's why Tiny Houses are banned in San Francisco and elsewhere. Because no one really needs more than 400 square feet of (well-designed) living space, but if people were allowed to buy houses and apartments that small then they wouldn't need to go into debt.
If the basic necessities of life become free then capital itself becomes devalued, so don't expect it to be an easy fight.