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.
As your debt grows, your problems increase very gradually, maybe even asymptotically. As your wealth grows, your problems increase roughly linearly, but the slope is steeper than with debt. In between the two, there’s the sweet spot with the least amount of problems.
According to some studies, happiness increases based on income. However, you will run into diminishing returns pretty quickly. In higher income levels happiness also becomes more complicated, so it’s pretty hard to tell if money is really helping at that point at all.
The sweet spot could be somewhere between 50 k$ and 100 k$ per year.
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.
I like to think of it this way.
As your debt grows, your problems increase very gradually, maybe even asymptotically. As your wealth grows, your problems increase roughly linearly, but the slope is steeper than with debt. In between the two, there’s the sweet spot with the least amount of problems.
That’s a great graph. Have you figured out where the sweet spot is?
According to some studies, happiness increases based on income. However, you will run into diminishing returns pretty quickly. In higher income levels happiness also becomes more complicated, so it’s pretty hard to tell if money is really helping at that point at all.
The sweet spot could be somewhere between 50 k$ and 100 k$ per year.