I'm guessing the phrase originated with people who have money?

"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.

Y intercept is non-zero.

Problems Vs money looks more like y = (x - 5)^2 + 2

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.

Cuz it doesn't, more money -> more solutions. At least that's how I use it.

Because the predicate is false to begin with.

More like "more claims denied = more problems (for the CEO)"

money means more complex problems and a larger possible drop until you reach escape velocity where its almost impossible to fail unless someone shoots you in the head in new york.

More money, more problems is just a lie.

The only problem you can have with money that wouldn't be replaced or superceded by other problems is having bills. If you don't have money, it's very easy to not have bills. But then you'd also not have a home or probably anything else, which is a bigger problem than having bills.

No money = suprisingly enough, straight to jail.

Diogenes would beg to differ.

Because you only get mo problems after you get mo than you need.

Not sure what it is with inflation, but a while ago the number was like 75k?

Money = happiness until you reach whatever threshold that's at today, and after that mo money doesn't get you mo happiness, just mo problems.

There's a minimum

I speculate the original intent of that expression was “more money; DIFFERENT problems.”

Too much money = problems, too little money = problems

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.

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.

Because there is a sweet spot somewhere.

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.

In both cases it's more problems, it's just that most money problems can be fixed with more money.

More money actually just inflicts the "mo' money" status debuff which multiplies your problems, not adds to it

It's because people can have more money, and they know that when they do there's more problems. But having no money is simply unaffordable.

Because it is an untrue statement

People with no money have one big problem, people with money have many small problems.

Nobody said problems(money) is a monotonic function (or that it crosses the origin point).