Especially since all of their wealth comes from having figured out how to keep a larger portion of the product of labor than labor itself.
Maybe that's a good thing, and it's only the governance model that is at fault (private ownership).
Or perhaps we should look closer at the externalities involved. Why is it that you can own a limited resource, like land, and profit from it. Shouldn't the exclusive control over a limited resource come with a cost?
Capital makes money by unpaid labor.
A woodshop is inherited by an heir. The carpenter comes in and creates furniture - let us say tables. The material for the table - wood, screws, varnish etc. cost $80. This would also include other costs - if a saw blade costs $100 but is good for 100 tables, then that 1/100 of a sawblade ($1) is included in the $80.
The table sells for $100 in a store attached to the woodshop. So all totalled inputs are $80, and the labor from the carpenter produces $20 of wealth per table.
The carpenter produces two tables an hour, and works for eight hours a day. So the carpenter creates $320 worth of value a day. The carpenter keeps all the wealth he creates for the first six hours a day - his daily take home pay is $240.
However, the carpenter is not paid for his labor for the last two hours a day. He is working for free, with all wealth generated going to the heir. This is surplus value he is generating, which is expropriated by the heir. This is where the profit comes from.
All modern rentier wealth is generated through these means. In the case of farmland, it is similar to the woodshop and carpenters, except we have workers, mostly of Mexican descent, working unpaid at the end of the day picking fruit in the Central Valley for those who took control of the land after Commodore John Sloat sailed his warships into Monterey Bay in the 1840s.
If the farmowner rents houses to the braceros, it is the same process, just one but removed. The landlord is not working for rent, the person doing the work to create the wealth is still the renter, it is just one level of abstraction. Usury is similar - moneylenders don't work for the wealth - they collect interest from those who do. Ultimately the value of all commodities derive from the work needed to create it. It doesn't take a lot of effort to collect and commoditize rainwater, so water is cheap. To find and mine gold takes more effort, so it is more expensive.
The social relationship of expropriation of unpaid time is what is important. It is all social relationships. There are no signs pointing down from the heavens saying who owns what. If it did, the farmland taken in California at gunpoint would belong to the Indians and Mexicans who lived there, not the heirs of that thest 175 years ago. With the profits derived from the labor of fruit-pickers, the theft continues to this day. As it does in the air-conditioned offices of Kifer Road and Market Street.
In other words "spread the cheer around".
The mythical mafia does this in popular culture as well by apparently buying Turkeys at Christmas time (for example) and helping people out in small ways and building trust. That trust allows them (in theory) to get away with the crimes that they commit (among other reasons). I say "mythical" because this is a popular cultural observation of mine, not some fact backed up by research. But I have found it to be true that people tend to look the other way if their palms are getting greased.
In case it's not entirely obvious it is also one of the reasons (along with tax benefits) that the rich give to charity causes. The good will gets those in power to look the other way.
I.e. it's not about how hard or long one works. It's about working effectively.
Scenario A: "I want to make iPhones. All you people at Apple, and all you people at FoxConn, get to work."
Result: iPhones and wealth.
Scenario B: "I want to make iPhones. I wish I had some laborers."
Result: Nothing.
Scenario C: "We workers want to make something. Mr Jobs, we hire you as our manager. Get to work, and sell these things."
Result: maybe iPhones, maybe what we have today, maybe something else.
Ideas and management are great and necessary, but not sufficient and not exclusive.