This is an amazing article overall, but I think this oversteps the implication a bit on both counts.

There is nothing about the first one that passes a value judgment on rich people in general. It's true that Jane isn't looking great here, but people of every socioeconomic status have their flaws, and we probably aren't going to be hearing about Jane and her husband if there isn't some sort of tension. You could use scenes like this to accumulate a contemptuous perspective, but it's not because this one is contemptuous all on its own--its not, and that is the point because part of how you import falsity into narratives is by misleading repetition and emphasis, and with n = 1 it's not misleading.

Similarly, the second isn't racist just because the names suggest races for the characters, and again, the characters aren't looking great. If you tell us that in fact it's the same scene--the woman is Sheronda "Jane" Thomas, or something--then the second one is absolutely racist because of how it uses language to suggest a lesser (class, relationship, and responsibility) standing than the character deserves, and does so in a way to bring race clearly into focus. But if it's simply a somewhat similar scene but with different details, again, n = 1. You can't tell yet.

In each case, the particular choice of words suggests a mood and invites you to fill in details beyond the literal meaning of the words. Beyond getting the facts of the matter correct, the implication one draws from the language might be honest--in that it accurately conveys the situation--or it might be deceptive, in that it is technically not a flat-out lie, but the conventional implicature does not comport with the reality of the situation.

You explain this very well later on with your explanation about how narratives are crafted. I just think you get a liiiittle bit ahead of yourself here.