[jiojfekjl]

1. "the rich" seems pretty clear an concise. What else would you call them. How is "rich people" any more or less crass?

2. You say it provides a strawman. But then you go on to basically confirm what the article says. And your defense is "that's just how it is"

[motohagiography]

It's difficult to see how a lurid view of how some people with money live (e.g. the article) improves peoples lives any more than say, porn.

The idea class mobility needs some sort of moral "defense," is certainly challenging. Sure, it hollows out the ranks of the aggrieved, but that's the point.

[mhneu]

Views of how the 'rich' live are vitally important today, when wealth inequality is the central social issue of our time, impacting government, policy, wages, and consumer markets alike. (Piketty).

Class mobility is good, of course - it's been a central tenet of American values, even if it's been smaller than thought. But I'm not sure that mobility between the 0.1% and 0.01% is the key flow - mobility between the middle 50% and top 5% is probably what we should be caring about.