If "more money=more problems," why doesn't "no money=no problems"?
If "more money=more problems," why doesn't "no money=no problems"?
55 comments
-
-
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.
-
-
You forgot one thing. If it's raining, it might be pouring. But it might not be pouring. If it IS pouring however, the old man IS snoring.
So rain doesn't equal old man snoring, but pouring rain does.
-
-
"no money no problems"
-
More like
"No capitalism, no problems"
-
-
-
Problems Vs money looks more like y = (x - 5)^2 + 2
-
On behalf of the mathematically challenged:
-
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.
-
-
So what you really need in life is 5 monies. Got it.
-
Yes, this represents that age where we had the optimal balance of being fully financed by parents yet getting a small allowance we didn't have to spend on anything. I.e. no problems. Anything else = more problems
-
-
5 money, 2 problems.
-
-
Y intercept is non-zero.
-
more oxygen = more problems / no oxygen = no problems
-
More money, more problems is referring to an excess of money. As in having too much causes problems, which is on the other end of the spectrum from having too little money.
When you have an excessive amount of money it draws attention and malicious behavior. Getting wealthy suddenly often means family coming out of the woodwork to try and get some of it, sales people will want to sell things, etc.
It is a saying that leaves out the important part, just like "money is the root of all evil" leaves out the "love of money" aka greed part.
So the real saying should be "love of money is the root of all evil" and "an excess of money leads to more problems". They went with more money because it flows better.
-
Interesting take. I’ve always interpreted this phrase as a folksy way of saying a cascade of causality or a progression of responsibilities.
I think this phrase also has origins in extreme poverty, not from extreme wealth. Greed has a lot to do with why the world is shitty but I don’t think that’s the “wisdom” this phrase is trying to express.
-
-
Cuz it doesn't, more money -> more solutions. At least that's how I use it.
-
Because the predicate is false to begin with.
-
-
-
Diogenes would beg to differ.
-
No money = suprisingly enough, straight to jail.
-
Because it is an untrue statement
-
It’s all in the wording. Everybody has problems (even those with no money). The saying is merely suggesting that having more money doesn’t fix all of your problems, but adds to them.
If you want fewer problems, live below your means (easier said than done these days).
Rich people tend to buy rich people things (e.g., Mercedes Benz, million $$$ houses, Gucci-level clothing, etc), so they also have rich people bills. They are buying things that are at or above their means.
There’s a saying that I live by: an elephant for a nickel is only a good deal if you need an elephant and have a nickel. It helps remind me to not impulse buy stuff that I don’t need, merely because I can afford it and it’s novel.
-
There’s a saying that I live by: an elephant for a nickel is only a good deal if you need an elephant and have a nickel.
This is amazing.
-
Poor people have mainly one problem: affording basic needs. As you get more you have lots more problems (in quantity, not severity). How much takeout is too much? What home improvement to prioritize? Estate planning? Who to hire to do taxes? House cleaner? Security (to protect the money)? Do you know a good travel agent? Insurance, upkeep on assets, investments. Am I charitable enough? Why am I still depressed? Should I see a therapist? Do I need a personal trainer?
Choosing how to spend money, is itself a problem. The only way to avoid the extra problems is to keep living like you’re poor, but without worries. Only buy what you need and know you can afford it.
-
-
There's a minimum
-
I would argue that the relationship isn’t at all linear. Just take a look at the dunning-kruger curve or the hype cycle curve to get an idea how wildly these things can fluctuate.
-
You have it. You could also say that the graph is linear, but with different zero values ("problems" has a bottom of N > 0), but if we're judging from IRL, it's more like a parabola.
-
-
Too much money = problems, too little money = problems
-
"Believe it or not, straight to jail."
-
-
I speculate the original intent of that expression was “more money; DIFFERENT problems.”
-
The consequences increase.
You know the saying: "if you owe 100 to the bank, then you have a problem, but if you owe 1 000 000 to the bank, then the bank has a problem"
For a regular person, this translates into being able to pay off 100 by working hard, but owing 100 000 is a lot harder to work off, so they'll need alternative solutions, like selling the car.
Financially speaking it's the difference between a profit/loss statement and a balance sheet. Once you have enough money, P/L doesn't matter in comparison to the balance.
Someone like Elon Musk stating that he doesn't have any money to pay is playing on this. He's all balance and no profit.
-
No money may only be one problem, but it's a very big one.
-
In both cases it's more problems, it's just that most money problems can be fixed with more money.
-
C c c apitalizm
-
Nobody said problems(money) is a monotonic function (or that it crosses the origin point).
-
People with no money have one big problem, people with money have many small problems.
-
More money actually just inflicts the "mo' money" status debuff which multiplies your problems, not adds to it
-
Different scales. Money is a simple -infiniti to +infiniti. Problems is a parabola that starts starts at +infiniti, approaches zero (without ever getting to zero) before returning to +infiniti when graphed against Money.
The people that coined this phrase clearly lived on the cusp of that return upward on this graph so their observation is limited to that subset.
-
No money no problems means we have moved past a currency based economy and have achieved true enlightenment as a species.
Maybe next life...
-
There will always be problems and money offers solutions to a lot of problems. So even if your problems grow, it's possible for your solutions to grow faster.
-
More money = more problems.
No money/little money = problems
-
You need your basic needs to be met
-
I do not see the “more problems” part on “more money”, you can always repurpose it or get rid of it until you are fine, doubt how that option would be problematic…
55 comments
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.
At least in the context of the song, I'm pretty sure the "mo' problems" part comes from the fact that having "mo' money" makes you a bigger target for people who would want to cut themselves in on your money and/or your sources of money.
Also, biggie had to work for his money, deal with the corporate record industry, and lived in a high-crime neighborhood. If you don't have to work, and you can afford to outsource your problems to others, then you can have a lot of money without problems.