Columnist: Obviously, money helps one satisfy oneʼs desires.
Conclusion
People become less happy as they become more wealthy.
Evidence
Even though money helps you satisfy your desires (and wealth helps you satisfy ones you would otherwise not be able to do), wealth always creates an even greater number of desires that will not be satisfied.
Evaluate
Preach, Columnist. This is why we have gross income inequality -- because a billionaire feels "poor" relative to richer billionaires.
The conclusion is saying that people become less happy as they become wealthy, but the evidence only speaks about having a greater number of unsatisfied desires.
So there is a Missing Link assumption that .
What sort of Objections would people make to this argument? How could they argue that even though wealth creates new desires that won't be satisfied, people actually DO become more happy as they become more wealthy?
Besides arguing that "number of unsatisfied desires" is irrelevant to happiness (attacking the missing link), we could argue that the desires you satisfy en route to $1 million are much more important to you than the desires you might satisfy en route to $10 million.
Meaning -- yes, becoming a billionaire has now created an even greater number of desires (private island, cryogenic freezing of my body, Paul McCartney's teeth), but those desires aren't super important ones. It doesn't hurt me to miss out on them. What really mattered was satisfying my previous set of core desires: financial security for my family, indoor basketball court at my house, decked out home studio for recording music.
Goal
Look for an answer saying, , or an answer that otherwise helps to convince us that Mo' Money, Mo' Problems.