We're deeply unconvinced there are too many rich people

Matthew Syed gets a little confused about positional goods:

Turchin argues that resentment among elites is having serious political consequences. He points out that the trappings of social prestige are, by their nature, limited. After all, if everyone had membership of Annabel’s, it wouldn’t be worth having. Status goods derive their cachet from how they exclude others. But this means that as the pool of super-rich swells rapidly, expectations outpace the constraints. This can lead to corruption and, in time, a breakdown of moral order.

That’s to get positional goods the wrong way around. There is always going to be that competition for them. A generally poorer society would have just as many people desiring to bop next to an over-champagned Duchess. A richer one would have just as many with the same lack of ambition and taste.

It is precisely because they are positional goods that the general level of wealth or income makes no difference. For it exactly having that little bit of whatever is defined as unavailable to all which is the point of the exercise in the first place.

Syed uses his misunderstanding to justify this:

There are too many super rich people now, and that spells trouble

When elites grow swollen and opportunities for their children dry up, unrest is inevitable

That could be true of non-positional goods, things that are not, by their very nature, in limited supply. But then if things are not, by their very nature, limited in supply, why would we worry about an increasing number of people who can afford them?