Wealth after all is a relative thing since he that has little and wants less is richer than he that has much and wants more.
The real sting here lies in Colton's reversal of who gets to define poverty: not circumstance, but appetite. Most of us hear "wanting less is better" and nod drowsily, but he's actually describing a psychological arithmetic where contentment operates as its own currency—meaning a person earning thirty thousand a year with modest desires outweighs a person earning three hundred thousand while perpetually eyeing what remains beyond reach. Watch this play out in any office: the colleague who leaves at five without guilt accumulates more actual leisure and peace than the ambitious peer refreshing their portfolio at midnight, despite the salary gap. Colton isn't moralizing about asceticism; he's pointing out that we've confused having with being.