Traditionally, there was "old money" and "new money" where entry into the old money class didn't rely solely on wealth but also on subtle social signifiers. What's new is the emergence of a class of "new old money" that adopts the same social signalling techniques of old money, even with new wealth.

No, that's not it. The main point of the article has been that the rich, instead of spending outrageous amounts of money on material things, are instead opting for non-material things to spend money on, and to signal their socio-economic status amongst peers. This has traditionally not been the case, where the rich spent a lot of money on fancy cars, houses and such to be as different as possible from other strata of society. Now such ostentatious displays of wealth are no longer sufficient to signal your high socio-economic standing and that is a rather huge change.

I think there is sufficient analysis for a "news" article. Its not a scientific publication. And the crux seems to be this quote:

> The US Consumer Expenditure Survey data reveals that, since 2007, the country’s top 1% (people earning upwards of $300,000 per year) are spending significantly less on material goods, while middle-income groups (earning approximately $70,000 per year) are spending the same, and their trend is upward.

Maybe I'm just uneducated on the spendings of the top 1% but to me it felt new. To each his own I guess

How the (English-speaking) rich signal their wealth: by referring to marvelous works in French that have no worthy English translations. :P

"Everyone" is a hyperbole but compared to 1899 it's relatively true, especially if the author means everyone in the middle class

Taken out of context, of course. But as a sibling mentioned, in the context of middle class being able to afford luxury goods without bankrupting themselves, that statement does make sense.