There USED to be a concept of "noblesse oblige", which in America was translated into the idea that if you had money and position, you were expected to behave in a benevolent way specifically towards those who worked for you and more generally towards those who did not have your benefits.
Those who inherited money were taught this by their parents. Those who did NOT inherit money did not want to be thought of as trash who happened into their bucks (what we Southerners used to call "no blood and new money"), so they learned quickly how to behave or they were despised.
Whatever the social compact was that insisted on this code of conduct is apparently gone in New York. It still survives in the South (except Atlanta) and I presume portions of New England and the Midwest.
The wealthy and powerful must be taught from their earliest education that they have a moral responsiblity that comes along with their wealth and power (I'm talking about a culturally and socially encouraged responsibility...not the phoney "responsbility" of socialism/redistribution....I'm talking about "nobility" in the best, old sense of the term).
Since the obvious impulse of the rich and powerful is to use their wealth and power to continue to accumulate more...this "noblesse oblige" is not something that is intuitive...but is rather something that must be taught by the person's parents, church, educators, etc. The case for this sort of thing is much easier to make when the downtrodden in a given society are of the same tribal unit as the powerful.
In a fragmented, multicultural society such as ours, there is neither the educational/cultural coherence to encourage such behavior...nor is there the argument from "tribal/extended family responsibility".
The result is uncultured, arrogant monsters like the above Ms. Grubman.