When Duesenberry expanded on Veblens theory in 1967, the business of marketing had expanded greatly and the level of sophistication targeting the consumer had greatly improved. Marketing is the force that informs society as to what is required for success. Marketing both creates and satisfies the need for conspicuous consumption by advertising and selling the products that they tell us are required. Historically, the cost to maintain the class level desired has increased. This moving target of success isn’t achieved with a cost to the consumer.
As the consumer is pushed by the marketing of products to maintain the changing level of required conspicuous consumption within their class, they are forced to leverage their income which results
…show more content…
“In 1920, women were 21 percent of all gainfully occupied persons. In 2010, they were 47% of employed persons”.(United States Dept of Labor, n.d.). The women that Veblen once described as spending their days concerned only with vicarious leisure to demonstrate the successes of the man are now employed in greater numbers. Veblen’s statement, “The leisure rendered by the wife in such cases is, of course, not a simple manifestation of idleness or indolence. It almost invariably occurs disguised under some form of work or household duties or social amenities, which prove on analysis to serve little or no ulterior end beyond showing that she does not occupy herself with anything that is gainful or that is of substantial use.”(Veblen, 1899, p. 8) no longer holds …show more content…
In describing “waste” Veblen notes, “It is here called “waste” because this expenditure does not serve human life or human well being on the whole…” (Veblen, 1899, p. 10). Then in what appears to be a contradictory statement notes “Whatever form of expenditure the consumer chooses, or whatever end he seeks in making his choice, has utility to him by virtue of his preference.” (Veblen, 1899, p. 10) Veblen appears to contradict himself, on one hand calling the products of conspicuous consumption of no value to individuals or society as a whole and then contradicts himself by declaring these items to have value as a matter of preference to the consumer. It appears that Veblen is non-committal in his opinion of the conspicuous consumer and uses a label (“waste”) and then tries to change our perception and understanding of the