The problem with your post is that you operate under the assumption that these people's pursuit of their self-interest is equivalent in morality to everyone else's or that unrestrained pursuit of one's self-interest to the detriment of others is just. You assume that this new financial elite are composed of people that actually create things and increase the pie and provides services where more often than not their jobs is securing a greater portion of the pie for themselves. Whether or not they are evil is one thing, but to say they lack any sense of social duty is almost entirely unquestionable. The purpose of a corporation is to make money, the courts themselves have agreed with this, anything else is ancillary.
That environment in and of itself produces a culture that promotes unrestrained greed. So even if the people are not individually "evil"--and I would not go to that extreme--the entire corporate enterprise is almost entirely immoral. So, no, these people are not just like everyone else because most people do not operate within the confines of a system that perpetuates callous behavior. It is why there is little back and forth from the private sector to the public sector, there is an intense distrust of how individuals who have operated in the private sector have been socialized.
I operate in that world, and if I told you that every once in awhile my job won't consist of screwing over the little guy, I'd be lying to you. At the end of the day, my job boils down to helping wealthy corporations and people make more money. That is corporate America, and that group is from which the new rich people in America have come from. People who aren't built like that, but are smart, end up leaving before long so I wouldn't doubt if these numbers are accurate.
It is not inherently a condition of man to behave selfishly (in the traditional sense), and even today, places like Finland have a beter senseof collective duty than the United States does. You're equating with what happened to the United States in the 1980s (and has persistedsince) with a natural order of things. It is not, it does not have to be. With that said, I wouldn't use the word evil, I would say less concerned with greater social causes and often employed to combat the proponents of such causes.
When has this ever been the case? 
what kinda study by Cal uses online news articles and editorials as sources instead of previously published peer reviewed literature?
How the fukk did he let that "evil" rich man punk him like that? All to frame the man as "evil?"