> Those forms of wealth allow those individuals to shape the environment and self-select in ways that other groups of individuals don't have access to.

Oh please, I just reread Grapes of Wrath and other literature about the Dust Bowl migration to California and it didn't take wealth for some of the poorest Americans to form or shape communities as they came to California. The key was they were hard working and dedicated. All it took was people of similar culture coming together and investing/supporting their own community. Eventually getting their own jobs, land, political support, and assimilating into California culture... eventually becoming locals themselves.

The 'local' people in California were just as hostile to those newcomers, they saw the 'Okies' as 'uneducated and dirty' who didn't belong. Not much different from the way SF activists are to tech workers... except the classes were reversed.

Or the 'carpetbaggers' coming from the Northeast US down into the Southern US following the civil war.

It's not a new phenomenon for newcomers to feel isolation from 'locals' nor for locals to resist change. People always resist change. While it gets justified in many ways by guilt, jealousy, nostalgia, fear of competition, etc, etc. It is not fundamentally about wealth. It has a combination of many issues, but largely has do with things being different.

Reducing every social/economic issue to class, wealth, and power is fraught with issues and requires ignoring plenty of evidence and counter-examples. Much of "new left" ideology and literature is famous for being reductionist in this way. The SF activist's approach to this issue is no different.