It’s the question that has baffled economists for generations. Why doesn’t economic growth make us happier?

This used to be known as “Easterlin’s Paradox” after economist Richard Easterlin. He pointed out way back in the 1970s that the industrialized world’s miraculous leaps in per capita GDP were not being matched by much, if any, gains in average life satisfaction.

And the debate has raged ever since.

“ When people find jobs when economic growth picks up, they typically get happier. But when they switch on the TV and watch commercials? Not so much. ”

Some sociologists say we’re unhappy because of something called The Hedonic Treadmill, which means we quickly get bored with every improvement, so that last year’s amazing new product is this year’s old junk.

Others say we’re unhappy because we’re trying to keep up with others — whether it’s the Joneses or the Kardashians.

Some say it’s all hooey and we really are getting happier — though you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who seriously argues that the U.S., which is 30% richer per capita than it was in the late 1990s, is now 30% happier, or even 3%.

But now economists have found another factor that may be to blame.

Advertising.

It’s making us miserable, according to a new paper published by the Center for Economic Policy Research. The richer we get as a society, the more advertising we see. And the more advertising we see, the unhappier we get, it concludes.

Researchers in Europe studied extensive life satisfaction surveys that have been conducted in more than two dozen European countries for decades. They looked at the data showing the amount of advertising spending in each country by year. Then they crunched the numbers.

Don’t miss:5 ways to buy happiness

In a nutshell: When spending on advertising went up, the life satisfaction went down — or, depending on what else was happening, went up less than expected. When people find jobs when economic growth picks up, they typically get happier.

But when they switch on the TV and start watching commercials? Not so much.

“Increases in national advertising expenditure are followed by significant declines in levels of life satisfaction,” wrote economists Michelle Sovinsky of the University of Mannheim in Germany and the Center for Economic Policy Research in London, Eugenio Proto and Andrew Oswald at Britain’s University of Warwick, and Chloe Michel at Switzerland’s reinsurance giant Swiss Re.

“ ‘Rises and falls in advertising are followed, a small number of years later, by falls and rises in national life-satisfaction.’ ” — —New paper published by the Center for Economic Policy Research

They have adjusted their findings for the personal and economic characteristics of individuals, and business-cycle influences and other variables.

“Rises and falls in advertising are followed, a small number of years later, by falls and rises in national life-satisfaction,” they found.

The study is based on an analysis of surveys of nearly 1 million people in 27 countries from 1980 to 2011. Over that time, happiness rose twice as much in the countries where advertising spending rose the least compared to those countries where it rose the most.

Indeed, they add, their analysis “is consistent with the hypothesis that, although rises in GDP may ceteris paribus be beneficial, the benefits of economic growth are somewhat offset by a rise in advertising expenditure.” (The American Association of Advertising Agencies did not respond immediately to a request for comment.)

Recommended: An 80-year Harvard study claims to have found the gateway to happiness

Based on this theory: Forget Occupy Wall Street, maybe Occupy Madison Avenue is a better idea.

Naturally, there are caveats. It’s only one study. Some of the numbers involved are small — gains or falls in national life satisfaction of a few percent, for example. And so far it’s only been conducted in Europe, not in the U.S. — although a spread of 27 European countries allows for a wide variation in cultures.

But why would advertising make people unhappy? The economists don’t address that, and leave it up to further research.

It’s a mystery.

“ Watching a stream of commercials featuring beautiful people with perfect teeth living in perfect homes might make anyone feel glum. ”

One theory: Watching a constant stream of commercials featuring beautiful people with perfect teeth living in perfect homes and driving the shiniest new cars might make one feel glum.

Take for example the recently lampooned campaign for Peloton, a home-exercise system that starts at $2,245, featuring extremely fit people exercising in their gorgeous homes.

According to Fast Company: “What the company thinks those best lives look like, however, is apparently straight out of a Manhattan-set romantic comedy sponsored by Goop.” (Peloton did not respond immediately to a request for comment.)

It’s a hard battle for advertisers to win. When they try to flip the script and acknowledge the image-centric tropes the industry has helped spread, they also face potential backlash.

When Dove, the maker of “beauty bars,” tried to instill its marketing with a message about female empowerment on Twitter TWTR, +6.08% , critics didn’t buy it. (Dove is owned by Unilever UN, -0.22% . )

One such tweet that rubbed some women (and men) the wrong way: “If you know a girl who has been negative online—about herself or others—try this fun activity to spread positivity.” Why this might leave anyone in the dumps is baffling.

Dove’s (rather witty, if bemused) Twitter followers appeared to find it condescending. One woman wrote: “Oh God. They’ve made a campaign out of those men that tell you to SMILE.”

“ Call it the Roger Dodger Paradox — after the eponymous character in Dylan Kidd’s dark 2002 comedy movie of the same name. ”

Call it the Roger Dodger Paradox — after the eponymous character in Dylan Kidd’s dark 2002 comedy movie of the same name. Roger, a cynical New York advertising man, here explains his job to his teenage nephew Nick:

Roger: “What do I do all day? I sit here and think of ways to make people feel bad.”

Nick: “Oh, I thought you worked for commercials.”

Roger: “I do. But you can’t sell a product without first making people feel bad.”

Nick: “Well… why not?”

Roger: “Because it’s a substitution game. You have to remind them that they’re missing something from their lives. Everyone’s missing something, right?”

Nick: “Yeah, I guess.”

Roger: “Trust me. And when they’re feeling sufficiently incomplete, you convince them that your product is the only thing that can fill the void. So instead of taking steps to deal with their lives, instead of working to root out the real reason for their misery, they run out and buy a stupid looking pair of cargo pants.”

Cargo pants, however, have in recent years been the subject of a backlash too.