There are enough flaws here that I feel most people are going to focus in on one or two they found particularly egregious so I will do the same: The pitching of class as upper vs. middle while entirely ignoring lower is horrifically offensive in addition to being a major flaw in the argument. First because we would need to address the poor and how the massive wealth gap is harmful to all of society before we could even begin to act on any of the suggestions within. Second because the poor are, in many ways, the peasants described within or even worse off than the peasants were. Additionally, the piece portrays anyone who is not in the "upper class" as being so by their own fault, a viewpoint I got tired enough of in college after a few too many run-ins with people who could not even imagine what it would be like to be less than upper-middle class (by current socioeconomic definitions).