Humans categorize things to make for easier analysis. By putting all the round things together, we can then say, "This ball is a small and red, while this ball is large and blue." Besides categorizing things, people also like to categorize other people. Tall people vs. short people, smart people vs dumb people, rich people vs. poor people.
Amongst the categorizations that I find useful is identifying "Famine people" vs. "Plenty people." Famine people are those who grew up with little material resources or emotional support. Plenty people are those who were lucky enough to have come from a rich family, or a strong loving family. I've noticed that amongst the elite, there are more plenty people, but it is the famine people who have the greatest impact. I've also noticed that the two groups have differing value systems. Plenty people are more likely to care about who you are 95% of the time, famine people are more likely to care about who you are that 5% of the time when there is a crisis. I've also noticed that plenty people are more likely to give you 100% every time, while famine people are more likely do the minimum to get by, as if conserving their energy for when they're facing a huge crisis that requires 200% of their energy.
Oddly though, I've noticed that plenty people tend to be happier overall. Famine people tend to always be striving for something better, never content with where they are. (It's probably why they make the most impact). All in all, I'd rather be a happy plenty person, than a striving famine person. The best situtation is to have a striving person accomplish great things as a young adult, and then become a plenty person. But most famine people are stuck being famine people, and never become a plenty person. And I'm still trying to figure out how a famine person becomes a plenty person.