This is incorrect, at least in my experience, which is considerable and relevant. Business managers and owners have learned ways to dictate what consumers do, at least statistically speaking.
For example, manufacturers began moving automobile manufacturing overseas at a non-negligible rate in the 1970s, and sold it as something that would be good for consumers, since it was (at the time) only a few jobs, and the lower labor costs would drive down the price of automobiles for all. But that's not what happened. When the lower labor costs were reaped, the big three actually raised the retail price of automobiles slightly, while taking the profits for themselves and the company owners. But, of course, in American cities, and thanks to lots of auto-industry lobbying, you need a car to get around, and so those economic elites could count on receiving slightly more of each American family's yearly budget, plus paying lower labor costs, all for the low-low price of having also weakened the U.S. economy.
Of course, the story is more complex still, as the decline of the U.S. auto industry was largely precipitated by moving jobs overseas and dismantling geographically concentrated chains of production (which model still obtains for Japanese and European automakers). But those decisions were taken by managers of the Big Three as a means of minimizing worker power in the face of increasing unionization.
I think you'll have a hard time explaining how consumers in the 1970s were demanding the same cars at slightly increased prices, while also demanding that jobs leaves these shores. Obviously, U.S. consumers demanded no such thing.