So you're saying if a company is boycotted by most of its poor customers, the rich customers will subsidize the loss? Do you really think that will happen?

Companies need customers, and if they lose customers, they can go out of business. The saying doesn't mean "the bigger the wallet, the bigger the vote" but rather "boycott this company and do not be a customer."

▲

Y-bar 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is effectively happening, not in the way you frame it, but companies has effectively moved to rely solely on the rich:

> The top 10% of American households in terms of income earned are driving nearly half of all U.S. consumer spending.

https://www.wsj.com/economy/consumers/us-economy-strength-ri...

Edit: An NPR episode on the concerning trend, https://www.npr.org/2025/11/21/nx-s1-5616629/consumer-sentim...

	▲	actionfromafar 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Ouch. That's a pattern in the developing world.
	▲	altmanaltman 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]

▲

Eisenstein 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No, that's not what they are saying. They are saying that the literal reading of the term itself implies that poor people have less of a say than rich people.

▲

altmanaltman 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It would if the saying was "vote with your dollars" or "vote with the dollars in your wallet". A literal reading of the term means you signal your vote/opinion by choosing what to pay for and it can hurt businesses since they have to generate revenue, not that $1 = 1 vote.

▲

Eisenstein 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I disagree. The wallet is a term that can be augmented by 'fat' or 'full' or 'heavy', which means that a wallet can be different sizes. From this you would get that poor people would have thinner wallets and thus less effect on outcomes where money is a factor.

	▲	altmanaltman 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Fair enough, but I would still agree to disagree since I dont think it refers to what's inside the wallet or any other quality about the wallet but just that you should vote by action and boycotts. But i mean, we are splitting hairs over semantics at this point. I could see both interpretations valid but i prefer mine.