The problem is that we're talking about an ASTRONOMICAL sum of money when it comes to people like Tim Cook. After the 50% pay cut, he's still making $49 million. Beyond a certain level of wealth, the numerical value of one's compensation becomes effectively meaningless. It's just theater for him to say he's taking a "pay cut".
Depends on your lifestyle inflation. Even for the high earners in the US, 49 million per year is FIRE money, but if you're used to the life of an oil sheikh with luxury clothing, jewelry, art, exotic private parties, dozens of rare supercars, private jets and yachts, McMansions/penthouses in London, Paris, Geneva, NY, Tokyo, etc., some private island where it's nice and warm, and also want to leave a similar lifestyle for your kids and their kids and their kids' kids, then 49 million per year is basically poverty money.
You'd think a quote like this, pulled out of context, would change its meaning once seen in context. It doesn't.
There's a vast difference between not being able to afford an absurd lifestyle of consumption and extravagance and being able to eat.
Someone's who's salary is cut from $100M a year to $49M a year, no matter how insane their spending was, isn't going to suffer.
If it's not clear: someone having to choose to buy a Ferrari instead of a Bugatti because of a pay cut is not the same as someone having to choose between shelter or food because of a pay cut.
Using a 3% withdrawal rate, $49m let's you safely live off $1.47m per year, far above what "high earners" are even earning. And that's just a flat $49m. You are saying $49m per year. That's a fucking ludicrous amount of money. Even if your hobby is dropping Bugattis off cliffs you won't exhaust that much income.