[throwaway55421]

Eh? I don't agree with this at all.

If you have a "certain level of wealth", why would you move from tiny apartment to tiny apartment? You have no need to sell your previous one, or just no need to move. Also, why are they tiny?

It sounds like you're talking about being nomadic on a middle to high income.

Most wealthy people I know own big houses in places like Kensington or Hampstead or whatever the equivalent is. They might also have a pied a terre or three, sure, but they're not constantly moving.

[rodelrod]

Moving a lot served me as a recurring reminder of the burden of stuff, but it's not the only way that it materializes.

Stuff takes space, stuff adds clutter, some stuff requires administrative overhead, most stuff requires maintenance.

I prefer tiny apartments in central neighbourhoods than bigger ones in the suburbs. Stuff enters into that equation. I can't afford a big house in Kensington. So OK, if I could afford a big house in Kensington plus a couple of pied-à-terre, maybe I wouldn't worry so much about stuff. I could have an extra room for a corkscrew collection and hired hands to deal with it. Stuff staff.

I added the "certain level of wealth" qualifier to make it clear that I didn't mean to claim that being burdened by stuff is a universal experience. It's a problem tied to abundance, like obesity and information overload. This level of wealth is much lower than what most people would consider "wealthy".

[lostmsu]

I think the point was that moving from tiny apartment to tiny apartment happened before he became wealthy, so he compares now, where he has to maintain all that stuff (car, house, furniture in all rooms, yard) vs before when he had maybe a sofa, a desk, and a laptop.