Well, yes. Luxury goods, especially those that are used as a “badge” of ability to pay. that are purchased when less-expensive alternatives would fulfill the function are examples of conspicuous consumption. A country club is a prototypical example of that. A cup of coffee not so much because there is no badge association. There’s nothing wrong with that. We all do it. In fact, conspicuous consumption helps to fuel the economy. It’s not a pejorative term, only one that recognizes that when we make financial decisions, symbolic utility as well as pure functionality figure into our definition of “worth.” I used the term because the symbolic associations with “elites” that transcend the pure functionality seem to fit Veblen’s original definition pretty well. Elizabeth Currid-Halkett’s recent book specifically mentions spending on education as a status-signal for the aspirational class, which is what started me thinking about it in the first place. I do think that spending $250K on an elite education for one’s offspring says something different than spending $250K on a Bentley…but it clearly does say something. (And that’s okay. In fact, the former is much more in keeping with my own value structure than the later is.)
I was actually using the general dictionary definition of corollary, “something that incidentally or naturally accompanies or parallels” (from Merriam-Webster) rather than the logic/mathematical proof formulation. So, based on that use, I think it’s appropriate. But, then again, I’m a sociologist not a logician. 