There are some obvious points to make here, like the fact that people with lots of money have the same range of personalities and interests and life stages and needs as people without lots of money. Not everyone enjoys visiting lots of different plsces. Some people value familiarity over novelty. It depends on what they want from a holiday surely. It might also depend on what these people do in order to be wealthy - for example someone living off massive intergenerational wealth and with little stress in their life might have more time and energy to explore different experiences, whilst someone grafting hard in a stressful senior role or running a business might view any spare time as a chance to connect with family and friends in a nice and comfortable location.
I am curious though about what 'well-travelled' means to you. Travelling to lots of different places doesn't necessarily mean much in itself. It's possible to go to a different identiket resort in a different country every time you go abroad. That's just ticking countries off on a map.
I think the idea of being well-travelled to me has a sort of assumption behind it about what travelling should be for - that it's some sort of personal growth or learning experience related to engaging with different cultures and acquiring new knowledge and perspectives. It's an idea that I associate with a sort of class-based flex: 'ooh, xyz people might have money but they don't know how to spend it.' 'They might be rich but they don't really have sophistication.' It reminds me of how taking a 'Grand Tour' of Europe used to be seen as a right of passage for wealthy young British men, which in theory was probably meant to be about extending their education in history and languages as part of acquiring some idea of sophistication and respectability (although historically plenty of the young men in question seemed more interested in sexual shenanigans and piss-ups). In more recent times this was mirrored in the popularity of the gap year whereby young people (often middle class) went off to do jobs in other places that they would consider beneath them in their own backyard and to contribute to various charity projects and to conqueror various mountains or whatever. Again it often seemed to me like a flex about supposed adventurousness and worthiness and as something to distinguish CVs from those of others (although I'm sure many young people got a lot of significant things from it and that at least some of the charitable projects made a genuine difference).
I do think there is a lot of potential value in travelling widely in a spirit of curiosity and adventure. I don't think that travelling automatically confers any sort of superiority however. Many of the most fascinating people I've ever met have never had the money or ability or will to leave their home town for any extended period of time, let alone the country. (I recall a quote I liked up on the wall in a classroom when I was a kid at school: 'the true voyage of discovery consists not of finding new horizons but in finding new eyes', or something like that).
Of course if your point is just that if you had more money, you'd spend it differently to the wealthy people you know, that is fair enough, but a pretty bland observation. I would probably say the same thing about fancy technology and interior decor.