The mass-consumption phenomenon did not occur spontane- ously, nor was it the inevitable by-product of an insatiable human nature. Quite the contrary. Economists at the tum of the century noted that most working people were content to earn just enough income to provide for their basic needs and a few luxuries, after which they preferred increased leisure time over additional work hours and extra income. According to economists of the day like Stanley Trevor and John Bates Clark, as people's income and affluence increase, a diminishing utility of returns sets in, making each increment in wealth less desirable. [...] Converting Americans from a psychology of thrift to one of spend- thrift proved a daunting task. [...] Consumption economists like Hazel Kyrk were quick to point out the commercial advantages of turning a nation of working people into status-conscious consumers. Growth, she declared, required a new level of consumer buying. "Luxuries for the well-off," she argued, had to be "turned into necessities for the poorer classes." Overproduction and technological employment could be mitigated, even eliminated, if only the working class could be re-educated toward the "dynamic consumption of luxuries." [...] Author Susan Strasser recounts the many marketing problems encountered by companies trying to sell products that never before existed and create needs that people had never before perceived: "People who never before bought com flakes were taught to need them: those formerly content to buy oats scooped from the grocer's bin were informed about why they should prefer Quaker Oats in a box. At the same time, they learned how packaged breakfast cereals fit modem urban life-styles, suiting people seeking convenience."

— The End of Work by Jeremy Rifkin (Page 19 - 21)