I guess I still have some work to do here. Back when we were discussing removing social constructs from capitalism this applies broadly. I see delegation as a social construct. In a way it is a limited number of people picking winners and losers.

This manifestation when seen in capitalism is often labeled as a type of cronyism.

Also when the middle wealth is attempting to socially keep the lower wealth subsidized (if only for participation) without it affecting the top tiers it is a type of socialism that continues to spread the costs from the middle downward, to the profit of the highest tiers. It is a type of socialism for those holding the most amount of wealth.

The bottom tiers need to defect out of the system to send the signal to the top tier that what they are doing is unsustainable. If that doesn't happen the middle and bottom tiers get ground down by this type of socialism while those at the top are unaffected(or even continue to profit).

(I would reference the adage about socializing risk and privatizing profit here, but not sure if it actually models the situation that well)

I know you have the heart to want to keep someone, even someone that thinks completely different on board, and it is a testament to your good nature, but I think logically you know that that signal needs to be sent. Talking about the problem is one possibility but defecting is likely the only thing that will bring significant change.