3 ms·

The phrase "voting with your wallet" is hilarious to begin with, because it admits that rich people have more voting power and implies that's how it should be.

zeroonetwothree 6mo ago
Collectively “rich people” spend less than 50% of the total consumer spending so this isn’t actually true exactly. If you mean an individual person then it really depends.
- mememememememo 6mo ago
  Consumer being the operative word. What about business spend?
altmanaltman 6mo ago
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 6mo ago
  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-rich-spending-2c34a571 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-sentiment-spending-wealth-gap https://www.npr.org/2025/11/21/nx-s1-5616629/consumer-sentim...
  - actionfromafar 6mo ago
    Ouch. That's a pattern in the developing world.
  - altmanaltman 6mo ago
    [dead]
- Eisenstein 6mo ago
  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 6mo ago
    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 6mo ago
      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 6mo ago
        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.
groundzeros2015 6mo ago
Vote with you wallet is not about civic function it’s about getting what you want from the market place. And yes rich people get more goods and services.. which is why people want to be rich?

zeroonetwothree 6mo ago

Collectively “rich people” spend less than 50% of the total consumer spending so this isn’t actually true exactly. If you mean an individual person then it really depends.

mememememememo 6mo ago
Consumer being the operative word. What about business spend?

altmanaltman 6mo ago

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 6mo ago
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-rich-spending-2c34a571 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-sentiment-spending-wealth-gap https://www.npr.org/2025/11/21/nx-s1-5616629/consumer-sentim...
- actionfromafar 6mo ago
  Ouch. That's a pattern in the developing world.
- altmanaltman 6mo ago
  [dead]
Eisenstein 6mo ago
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 6mo ago
  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 6mo ago
    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 6mo ago
      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.

groundzeros2015 6mo ago

Vote with you wallet is not about civic function it’s about getting what you want from the market place. And yes rich people get more goods and services.. which is why people want to be rich?