This is also possibly just a re-articulation of age-old delineations between working/middle and upper class sentiments.
I think the working/middle class are the same ladder though and most of them share the same values in that they are no psychopath barbarians.
The right-hand ladder is actually 2 parts:
The ibankers belong squarely in the middle class rung. They are just workers like everyone else, and frankly, as preformative. Most of them are regular people and not sociopaths.
The difference with some 'banking' roles - is that they are playing in games of 'dealing and leverage' - not so much value creation.
So they're naturally going to acclimate to a different way of viewing thew world. They play zero-sum games whereas everyone else is doing work, or trying/pretending to.
They have access to the 'old money' class and they see the potentiality.
But really - the lower rungs of banking are just upper-class elite.
The 'old money' are not necessarily sociopaths - they are often quite nice people, they vary from down-to-earth to detached to egoist. Maybe not nice enough to give up their money but not necessarily bad people. And living off of a stipend of limited wealth can give a sense of the limitations of money and these people are not wagging their money in your face.
There is a hugely fundamental difference between 'barbarian' like Donald Trump, or Putin, and kids from the Bertelsmann family because those who are 'out of the game' and living off old money are super effete, it's not like they are going to be that important or influential. They are useless and they know it.
I also dispute the morale differentials etc. I think there's some truthiness there, but it's a function of aspiration: the 'working class' have more likely than not accepted their lot while the 'middle class' are competing for surpluses.
Finally, I'm not so cynical. Those 'middle class' people do important things. It's not easy to be a dentist, doctor, write software, manage people etc..