Thegreaterprevalenceofdissipationamongprintersthanamongtheaverageofworkmenisaccordinglyattributable，atleastinsomemeasure，tothegreatereaseofmovementandthemoretransientcharacterofacquaintanceandhumancontactinthistrade。ButthesubstantialgroundofthishighrequirementindissipationisinthelastanalysisnootherthanthatsamepropensityforamanifestationofdominanceandpecuniarydecencywhichmakestheFrenchpeasant-proprietorparsimoniousandfrugal，andinducestheAmericanmillionairetofoundcolleges，hospitalsandmuseums。Ifthecanonofconspicuousconsumptionwerenotoffsettoaconsiderableextentbyotherfeaturesofhumannature，alientoit，anysavingshouldlogicallybeimpossibleforapopulationsituatedastheartisanandlaboringclassesofthecitiesareatpresent，howeverhightheirwagesortheirincomemightbe。
　　Butthereareotherstandardsofreputeandother，moreorlessimperative，canonsofconduct，besideswealthanditsmanifestation，andsomeofthesecomeintoaccentuateortoqualifythebroad，fundamentalcanonofconspicuouswaste。Underthesimpletestofeffectivenessforadvertising，weshouldexpecttofindleisureandtheconspicuousconsumptionofgoodsdividingthefieldofpecuniaryemulationprettyevenlybetweenthemattheoutset。Leisuremightthenbeexpectedgraduallytoyieldgroundandtendtoobsolescenceastheeconomicdevelopmentgoesforward，andthecommunityincreasesinsize；whiletheconspicuousconsumptionofgoodsshouldgraduallygaininimportance，bothabsolutelyandrelatively，untilithadabsorbedalltheavailableproduct，leavingnothingoverbeyondabarelivelihood。Buttheactualcourseofdevelopmenthasbeensomewhatdifferentfromthisidealscheme。Leisureheldthefirstplaceatthestart，andcametoholdarankverymuchabovewastefulconsumptionofgoods，bothasadirectexponentofwealthandasanelementinthestandardofdecency，duringthequasi-peaceableculture。Fromthatpointonward，consumptionhasgainedground，until，atpresent，itunquestionablyholdstheprimacy，thoughitisstillfarfromabsorbingtheentiremarginofproductionabovethesubsistenceminimum。
　　Theearlyascendencyofleisureasameansofreputabilityistraceabletothearchaicdistinctionbetweennobleandignobleemployments。Leisureishonorableandbecomesimperativepartlybecauseitshowsexemptionfromignoblelabor。Thearchaicdifferentiationintonobleandignobleclassesisbasedonaninvidiousdistinctionbetweenemploymentsashonorificordebasing；andthistraditionaldistinctiongrowsintoanimperativecanonofdecencyduringtheearlyquasi-peaceablestage。Itsascendencyisfurtheredbythefactthatleisureisstillfullyaseffectiveanevidenceofwealthasconsumption。
　　Indeed，soeffectiveisitintherelativelysmallandstablehumanenvironmenttowhichtheindividualisexposedatthatculturalstage，that，withtheaidofthearchaictraditionwhichdeprecatesallproductivelabor，itgivesrisetoalargeimpecuniousleisureclass，anditeventendstolimittheproductionofthecommunity’sindustrytothesubsistenceminimum。Thisextremeinhibitionofindustryisavoidedbecauseslavelabor，workingunderacompulsionmorevigorousthanthatofreputability，isforcedtoturnoutaproductinexcessofthesubsistenceminimumoftheworkingclass。Thesubsequentrelativedeclineintheuseofconspicuousleisureasabasisofreputeisduepartlytoanincreasingrelativeeffectivenessofconsumptionasanevidenceofwealth；butinpartitistraceabletoanotherforce，alien，andinsomedegreeantagonistic，totheusageofconspicuouswaste。
　　Thisalienfactoristheinstinctofworkmanship。Othercircumstancespermitting，thatinstinctdisposesmentolookwithfavoruponproductiveefficiencyandonwhateverisofhumanuse。
　　ItdisposesthemtodepreCatewasteofsubstanceoreffort。Theinstinctofworkmanshipispresentinallmen，andassertsitselfevenunderveryadversecircumstances。Sothathoweverwastefulagivenexpendituremaybeinreality，itmustatleasthavesomecolorableexcuseinthewayofanostensiblepurpose。Themannerinwhich，underspecialcircumstances，theinstincteventuatesinatasteforexploitandaninvidiousdiscriminationbetweennobleandignobleclasseshasbeenindicatedinanearlierchapter。Insofarasitcomesintoconflictwiththelawofconspicuouswaste，theinstinctofworkmanshipexpressesitselfnotsomuchininsistenceonsubstantialusefulnessasinanabidingsenseoftheodiousnessandaestheticimpossibilityofwhatisobviouslyfutile。Beingofthenatureofaninstinctiveaffection，itsguidancetoucheschieflyandimmediatelytheobviousandapparentviolationsofitsrequirements。Itisonlylesspromptlyandwithlessconstrainingforcethatitreachessuchsubstantialviolationsofitsrequirementsasareappreciatedonlyuponreflection。
　　Solongasalllaborcontinuestobeperformedexclusivelyorusuallybyslaves，thebasenessofallproductiveeffortistooconstantlyanddeterrentlypresentinthemindofmentoallowtheinstinctofworkmanshipseriouslytotakeeffectinthedirectionofindustrialusefulness；butwhenthequasi-peaceablestagewithslaveryandstatuspassesintothepeaceablestageofindustrywithwagelaborandcashpaymenttheinstinctcomesmoreeffectivelyintoplay。Itthenbeginsaggressivelytoshapemen’sviewsofwhatismeritorious，andassertsitselfatleastasanauxiliarycanonofself-complacency。Allextraneousconsiderationsapart，thosepersonsadultarebutavanishingminoritytodaywhoharbornoinclinationtotheaccomplishmentofsomeend，orwhoarenotimpelledoftheirownmotiontoshapesomeobjectorfactorrelationforhumanuse。Thepropensitymayinlargemeasurebeoverbornebythemoreimmediatelyconstrainingincentivetoareputableleisureandanavoidanceofindecoroususefulness，anditmaythereforeworkitselfoutinmake-believeonly；asforinstancein“socialduties，“andinquasi-artisticorquasi-scholarlyaccomplishments，inthecareanddecorationofthehouse，insewing-circleactivityordressreform，inproficiencyatdress，cards，yachting，golf，andvarioussports。Butthefactthatitmayunderstressofcircumstanceseventuateininanitiesnomoredisprovesthepresenceoftheinstinctthantherealityofthebroodinginstinctisdisprovedbyinducingahentositonanestfulofchinaeggs。
　　Thislatter-dayuneasyreaching-outforsomeformofpurposefulactivitythatshallatthesametimenotbeindecorouslyproductiveofeitherindividualorcollectivegainmarksadifferenceofattitudebetweenthemodernleisureclassandthatofthequasi-peaceablestage。Attheearlierstage，aswassaidabove，theall-dominatinginstitutionofslaveryandstatusactedresistlesslytodiscountenanceexertiondirectedtootherthannaivelypredatoryends。Itwasstillpossibletofindsomehabitualemploymentfortheinclinationtoactioninthewayofforcibleaggressionorrepressiondirectedagainsthostilegroupsoragainstthesubjectclasseswithinthegroup；andthissewedtorelievethepressureanddrawofftheenergyoftheleisureclasswithoutaresorttoactuallyuseful，orevenostensiblyusefulemployments。Thepracticeofhuntingalsosewedthesamepurposeinsomedegree。Whenthecommunitydevelopedintoapeacefulindustrialorganization，andwhenfulleroccupationofthelandhadreducedtheopportunitiesforthehunttoaninconsiderableresidue，thepressureofenergyseekingpurposefulemploymentwaslefttofindanoutletinsomeotherdirection。Theignominywhichattachestousefuleffortalsoentereduponalessacutephasewiththedisappearanceofcompulsorylabor；andtheinstinctofworkmanshipthencametoassertitselfwithmorepersistenceandconsistency。
　　Thelineofleastresistancehaschangedinsomemeasure，andtheenergywhichformerlyfoundaventinpredatoryactivity，nowinparttakesthedirectionofsomeostensiblyusefulend。
　　Ostensiblypurposelessleisurehascometobedeprecated，especiallyamongthatlargeportionoftheleisureclasswhoseplebeianoriginactstosetthematvariancewiththetraditionoftheotiumcumdignitate。Butthatcanonofreputabilitywhichdiscountenancesallemploymentthatisofthenatureofproductiveeffortisstillathand，andwillpermitnothingbeyondthemosttransientvoguetoanyemploymentthatissubstantiallyusefulorproductive。Theconsequenceisthatachangehasbeenwroughtintheconspicuousleisurepracticedbytheleisureclass；notsomuchinsubstanceasinform。A
　　reconciliationbetweenthetwoconflictingrequirementsiseffectedbyaresorttomake-believe。Manyandintricatepoliteobservancesandsocialdutiesofaceremonialnaturearedeveloped；manyorganizationsarefounded，withsomespeciousobjectofameliorationembodiedintheirofficialstyleandtitle；thereismuchcomingandgoing，andadealoftalk，totheendthatthetalkersmaynothaveoccasiontoreflectonwhatistheeffectualeconomicvalueoftheirtraffic。Andalongwiththemake-believeofpurposefulemployment，andwoveninextricablyintoitstexture，thereiscommonly，ifnotinvariably，amoreorlessappreciableelementofpurposefuleffortdirectedtosomeseriousend。
　　Inthenarrowersphereofvicariousleisureasimilarchangehasgoneforward。Insteadofsimplypassinghertimeinvisibleidleness，asinthebestdaysofthepatriarchalregime，thehousewifeoftheadvancedpeaceablestageappliesherselfassiduouslytohouseholdcares。Thesalientfeaturesofthisdevelopmentofdomesticservicehavealreadybeenindicated。
　　Throughouttheentireevolutionofconspicuousexpenditure，whetherofgoodsorofservicesorhumanlife，runstheobviousimplicationthatinordertoeffectuallymendtheconsumer’sgoodfameitmustbeanexpenditureofsuperfluities。Inordertobereputableitmustbewasteful。Nomeritwouldaccruefromtheconsumptionofthebarenecessariesoflife，exceptbycomparisonwiththeabjectlypoorwhofallshortevenofthesubsistenceminimum；andnostandardofexpenditurecouldresultfromsuchacomparison，exceptthemostprosaicandunattractivelevelofdecency。Astandardoflifewouldstillbepossiblewhichshouldadmitofinvidiouscomparisoninotherrespectsthanthatofopulence；as，forinstance，acomparisoninvariousdirectionsinthemanifestationofmoral，physical，intellectual，oraestheticforce。Comparisoninallthesedirectionsisinvoguetoday；andthecomparisonmadeintheserespectsiscommonlysoinextricablyboundupwiththepecuniarycomparisonastobescarcelydistinguishablefromthelatter。Thisisespeciallytrueasregardsthecurrentratingofexpressionsofintellectualandaestheticforceorproficiency’sothatwefrequentlyinterpretasaestheticorintellectualadifferencewhichinsubstanceispecuniaryonly。
　　Theuseoftheterm“waste“isinonerespectanunfortunateone。Asusedinthespeechofeverydaylifethewordcarriesanundertoneofdeprecation。Itishereusedforwantofabettertermthatwilladequatelydescribethesamerangeofmotivesandofphenomena，anditisnottobetakeninanodioussense，asimplyinganillegitimateexpenditureofhumanproductsorofhumanlife。Intheviewofeconomictheorytheexpenditureinquestionisnomoreandnolesslegitimatethananyotherexpenditure。Itisherecalled“waste“becausethisexpendituredoesnotservehumanlifeorhumanwell-beingonthewhole，notbecauseitiswasteormisdirectionofeffortorexpenditureasviewedfromthestandpointoftheindividualconsumerwhochoosesit。Ifhechoosesit，thatdisposesofthequestionofitsrelativeutilitytohim，ascomparedwithotherformsofconsumptionthatwouldnotbedeprecatedonaccountoftheirwastefulness。Whateverformofexpendituretheconsumerchooses，orwhateverendheseeksinmakinghischoice，hasutilitytohimbyvirtueofhispreference。Asseenfromthepointofviewoftheindividualconsumer，thequestionofwastefulnessdoesnotarisewithinthescopeofeconomictheoryproper。Theuseoftheword“waste“asatechnicalterm，therefore，impliesnodeprecationofthemotivesoroftheendssoughtbytheconsumerunderthiscanonofconspicuouswaste。
　　Butitis，onothergrounds，worthnotingthattheterm“waste“inthelanguageofeverydaylifeimpliesdeprecationofwhatischaracterizedaswasteful。Thiscommon-senseimplicationisitselfanoutcroppingoftheinstinctofworkmanship。Thepopularreprobationofwastegoestosaythatinordertobeatpeacewithhimselfthecommonmanmustbeabletoseeinanyandallhumaneffortandhumanenjoymentanenhancementoflifeandwell-beingonthewhole。Inordertomeetwithunqualifiedapproval，anyeconomicfactmustapproveitselfunderthetestofimpersonalusefulness-usefulnessasseenfromthepointofviewofthegenericallyhuman。Relativeorcompetitiveadvantageofoneindividualincomparisonwithanotherdoesnotsatisfytheeconomicconscience，andthereforecompetitiveexpenditurehasnottheapprovalofthisconscience。