Editing Thorstein Veblen (section)

===Leisure class===
In ''[[The Theory of the Leisure Class]]'', Veblen writes critically of [[conspicuous consumption]] and its function in social-class [[consumerism]] and [[social stratification]].{{sfn|Diggins|1978}} Reflecting historically, he traces said economic behaviors back to the beginnings of the [[Division of labour|division of labor]], or during tribal times. Upon the start of a division of labor, [[High status|high-status]] individuals within the community practiced hunting and war, notably less labor-intensive and less economically productive work. Low-status individuals, on the other hand, practiced activities recognized as more economically productive and more labor-intensive, such as farming and cooking.{{sfn|Dowd|1966|pp=25–27}} High-status individuals, as Veblen explains, could instead afford to live their lives [[leisure]]ly (hence their title as the [[leisure class]]), engaging in [[Symbolic interactionism|symbolic]] economic participation, rather than practical economic participation. These individuals could engage in conspicuous leisure for extended periods of time, simply following pursuits that evoked a higher social status. Rather than participating in conspicuous consumption, the leisure class lived lives of conspicuous leisure as a marker of high status.{{sfn|Diggins|1978|pp=57–60}} The leisure class protected and reproduced their social status and control within the tribe through, for example, their participation in war-time activities, which while they were rarely needed, still rendered their lower social class counterparts dependent upon them.{{sfn|Dowd|1966|p=113}} During modern industrial times, Veblen described the leisure class as those exempt from industrial labor. Instead, he explains, the leisure class participated in intellectual or artistic endeavors to display their freedom from the economic need to participate in economically productive manual labor. In essence, not having to perform labor-intensive activities did not mark higher social status, but rather, higher social status meant that one would not have to perform such duties.{{sfn|Diggins|1978|p=72-75}}

====Assessment of the rich====
Veblen expanded upon [[Adam Smith]]'s [[The Wealth of Nations|assessment of the rich]], stating that "[t]he leisure class used charitable activities as one of the ultimate benchmarks of the highest standard of living."<ref name=":1" /> Veblen insinuates that the way to convince those who have money to share is to have them receive something in return. [[Behavioral economics]] also reveals that [[Reward anticipation|rewards]] and [[incentive]]s are very important aspects of every-day [[Decision-making|decision making]]. When the rich shift their mindset from feeling as though they are forced to give their hard-earned money to feeling pride and honor from giving to charitable organizations there is benefit for every party involved. In ''[[The Theory of the Leisure Class]]'' (1899), Veblen referred to communities without a leisure class as "non-predatory communities," and stated that "[t]he accumulation of wealth at the upper end of the [[pecuniary]] scale implies privation at the lower end of the scale." Veblen believed that inequality was natural, and that it gave housewives something to focus their energy on. The members of the leisure class planning events and parties did not actually help anyone in the long run, according to Veblen.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|doi=10.1080/00213624.1998.11506049|jstor=4227319|title=Poverty and Charity: Early Analytical Conflicts between Institutional Economics and Neoclassicism|year=1998|last1=Ganley|first1=William T.|journal=Journal of Economic Issues|volume=32|issue=2|pages=433–440}}</ref>