This is effectively happening, not in the way you frame it, but companies has effectively moved to rely solely on the rich:
reply> 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...
Ouch. That's a pattern in the developing world.
reply[dead]
replyNo, 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.
replyIt 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.
replyI 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.
replyFair 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.
replyBut i mean, we are splitting hairs over semantics at this point. I could see both interpretations valid but i prefer mine.