Okay, like you’re five:
Your rent is your expense, so cutting your spending can help you afford it.
Your wage is someone else’s expense, and it depends on what your labor is worth to them, not how many yachts their CEO owns.
Selling a yacht can fund payroll once. It doesn’t make your job permanently more productive.
If your labor is worth more elsewhere, sell it elsewhere. If it isn’t, confiscating someone’s yacht doesn’t change that.
The mistake is treating wages as an allowance determined by how rich the owner is rather than a price for labor.
PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS TO ME LIKE I’M FIVE.
When someone can’t afford rent, we immediately hear:
“Stop buying fast food.”
“Skip the $7 latte.”
“Make coffee at home.”
“Cut out avocado toast.”
But when a company says it can’t afford to pay workers enough to live?
Nobody says:
“Maybe buy one fewer private jet.”
“Skip the third yacht.”
“Perhaps don’t buy another mansion this year.”
Why is the person struggling always expected to sacrifice the little things they enjoy, while the people at the top are never told to sacrifice anything?
I’m genuinely trying to understand the logic.