The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions

This chapter primarily argues that the standard of living, an ever-shifting bar conjured by society, is at its root a measure of decency, not of physical comfort. People are compelled to consume beyond their basic necessities not because those products bring them additional pleasure, but because they wish above all to adhere to the “conventional standard of decency” (70); consumption of luxury goods is seen as a measure of personal worth. Widespread participation in pecuniary waste is born out of an individual’s desire to emulate and outperform others, especially those who belong in the same socioeconomic class.

Veblen concedes that it is sometimes difficult to pinpoint the difference between excess and necessity, as there is no universal standard for basic human subsistence. Nevertheless, compared to luxuries, which can be reluctantly relinquished, necessities are always given up last; he thus defines necessities as the “aggregate consumption required for the maintenance of life” (73). Although not completely uniform, this measure is relatively constant compared to the standards for conspicuous expenditure.

Veblen’s use of the term “standard of living” is fundamentally different from the concept of necessary consumption. Standards of living are ever-changing and are measured according to “decent expenditure”—consumption regulated by what is considered respectable for a specific social class rather than what is necessary for life.