I have been recently wrestling with the idea of vexing resources, or the idea that a resource, especially money and other material wealth, can simultaneously be both a benefit and an obstacle to well-being. Common sense would have us believe that throwing money at a problem can ameliorate certain kinds of unhappiness. Research backs up common sense, having established the negative effect of chronic stress and poverty in particular on cognitive ability and mental health. There are many problems caused by a lack of money, so adding money should solve problems in these spheres, right? Not necessarily so. Consider the following observations by a psychiatrist and an investor on the negative impact of resources, and how they were got:

“There’s a great difference between the value you place on what you’ve worked for and got by your own achievement as opposed to the value you place on things you get on a silver platter. There’s never much real personal value or self-esteem derived from anything given to you on a silver platter. It can only make you feel inadequate.” -Elvin Semrad

“Wealthy parents should leave their children enough so they can do anything, but not enough that they can do nothing.” -Warren Buffett

Obviously, money carries significant meaning beyond mere utility, and you can see that Buffett and Semrad are trying to get at that larger meaning with two different vernaculars, with Buffett’s words in particular open to multiple interpretations. First: With enough money, a person is capable of living without doing anything meaningful or useful. Second: A gift or inheritance can paralyze its recipients, rendering them unable to do anything. Semrad confirms this by effectively noting that a silver platter (or spoon) can choke off any real sense of self-worth or achievement.

The simplest conclusion here is that there can be too much of a good thing, but figuring out when that line is crossed depends on many factors separate from the thing itself. For example, a sizable inheritance might awaken feelings of smallness or insignificance, the impact of which might differ based on the recipient’s own stage of life and sense of achievement. Further, inheritance in particular lends death an uncomfortable transactional aspect that may influence how we relate to the resources left behind. 

There is also the question of, How do we grapple with the sense that we don’t measure up to the productive largess of our predecessors? This question in particular may speak to the experience of having been born into wealth and perhaps never having a realistic opportunity to achieve the kind of independence and productivity Semrad describes. It may be hard to pin down the point at which this can no longer occur, but it is safe to say there is a point at which it cannot realistically occur.

If not having enough money to live qualifies as a harmful experience, then applying money to certain problems will solve them, if not by adding happiness, then at least by subtracting stress. At the same time, there are limits to this kind of problem solving, and it is the same difference we observe between staying well-hydrated and drowning. Add in the experience of such an event or such a life playing out in familial, social, and public spheres, and it would be normal to feel ambivalence, grief, and perhaps further confusion about the coexistence of beneficence and loss.