That's a hot take. Let's break some things down >> the top 20% possess superior values, habits, and cultural systems for social success and upward mobility Wu

That's a hot take. Let's break some things down >> the top 20% possess superior values, habits, and cultural systems for social success and upward mobility Wut? The top 20% possess a disproportionate amount of the real wealth. This isn't a value or habit, it's just the money itself. You don't need upward mobility when you're already at the top. You know what they say, the easiest way to make a million dollars is to start with 2 million dollars... >>make choices to gear themselves and their children towards development of important skills to thrive in the modern workplace. Or, they then use that disproportionate level of wealth to skew the system towards benefiting them. If you're a CEO, you can create a culture that favors people like you (because hey, you're a CEO, and "logically" you should want people that resemble you since you're so successful) which creates a bias towards certain people and therefor against others. If you have huge sums of money you can afford to hire the best accountants that allow you to avoid paying as much in taxes (because the tax code was lobbied for by previous generations of extremely wealthy people). Oh, and you already have a built in network of connections to allow open (or just fully remove) doors blocking your way towards success. Getting rich is extremely hard. Staying rich, much less so. The point of this article however seemed to be that if you agree that there is a problem with the distribution of wealth (spoiler: pretty much every poll in recent years has shown this is overwhelmingly true on both sides of the political spectrum) then figuring out people who may be responsible for this would be a good way to solve it. Also, "herd morality" is just "morality" or "culture". There's no such thing as objective morality that I've encountered. At best you'll just find common cultural agreements.