If I now understand correctly, MR was talking about truly wealthy persons in 1962, who did not insist on quality material because they did not care. So we have the allegations

• Conformism, lack of individuality
• Choice of profession according to income and prestige
• Lack of taste; going for show value, however short-lived
• Neglecting durability and quality of living, even though they could afford it.

That makes sense. Those who feel offended because they live in inferior housing for economical reasons, can be replied that they are not targeted, because (typical) Californian doctors and lawyers are not in that group.

Remains the mixture of allegations resulting in stereotyping. In this thread and the other one Do you like 'Little Boxes'?, many valid points are put forward against such stereotypes. Songwriters had best focus on one issue at a time, such as criticizing conformist prestige-seekers. Even if the latter are likely to prefer showy building material to durable one, and choose certain professions, this must not be the primary accusation, and had best not be mentioned at all in a short song. There are much better reasons to criticize that life style.

As I wrote above, the pioneers must be granted some licence, particularly for a song that had an impact on the non-musical world to the better. Nowadays, lyricists must be careful.