I’m guessing the phrase originated with people who have money?
I think it’s more like, people who have transitioned from having no money, where money would solve a lot of problems, to having money, where those problems have been replaced with other problems, and they are shocked to discover that having money doesn’t eliminate all problems. Even if they have fewer problems than they did when they had no money, their current problems are more frustrating because they expected to have fewer problems with more money.
I feel like there’s got to be a point on the curve where the money to problems ratio is just right lol.
The hard part is that point moves. I have very few problems. And insurance covers some things (supposedly). But if my spouse died and I suddenly had to throw child care into the mix, and changing my schedule to be the one that takes them to/from school… I could easily wind up where new problems form. I thought I had enough money, but I only had enough money for the specific circumstances
There was a study about that around 15 years ago and the number was $78,000. Money does make you happy and solve problems to an extent, or rather it eliminates miserable situations created by poverty. Beyond that though, it’s up to you to find happiness. This was 15 years ago, so that number is probably double now.
Some people stressed about paying rent. Some people stressed about paying mortgage. Some people stressed about paying loan on their investment. Some people stressed about being assassinated on the street.
It’s more of a gratitude and cash flow issue. You can stopped at any point, but most people just want more.
“no money no problems”
Because that’s the logical fallacy of Denying the Antecedent . If “it’s raining” then “the sidewalk is wet”. Knowing that it’s raining tells us something about the sidewalk, it’s not dry, it’s wet. And knowing the sidewalk is dry tells us something, it can’t be raining (because if it was, the sidewalk would be wet).
But knowing “it is not raining” doesn’t tell us about the sidewalk (it could be dry, it could be wet, maybe it rained earlier, maybe a dog peed on it). And similarly knowing the sidewalk is wet doesn’t tell us anything about the rain.
So even if “mo money causes mo problems” all that tells us is that someone with mo money will not be problem free. People with no money might also have mo problems, the syllogism doesn’t tell us about that.
The use of the word “more” in “more money more problems” indicates that both money and problems are continuous variables. Thus, the statement should be modeled with predicate logic, but with analysis. As phrased, the sentence implies a positive derivative between the two variables. If assumed to be valid over the complete range of possible values, “less money, less problems” indeed follows.
If assumed to be valid over the complete range of possible values,
Which is where this logic fails. The saying is usually constricted to the range of “a lot of money” to “way too fucking much money”, with money less than “a lot of money” not included. Therefore the derivative can be positive, negative, zero, or anything really. Also to be pedantic technically the derivative doesn’t need to exist for a positive Δmoney to yield a positive Δproblems.
Y intercept is non-zero.
Problems Vs money looks more like y = (x - 5)^2 + 2
Ideally, you would aim to have roughly 5 units of money, because at that point, you’ll have the least amount problems possible. If you have more ore less, there will be more problems. Interestingly, if you have negative money (i.e. debt) you can have lots of problems, but so do those who have a lot of money. Also, the amount of problems you have increases quite rapidly as you deviate away from the sweet spot.
