What do you consider to be the main differences between "old money" and "new money"

As someone who hails from the blue blooded New England Anglo-Norman protestant high stock of Andover/Exeter/Deerfield, my family has traditionally regarded those who gained high socio-economic standing after the second World War (1940s onward) as "new money" and not our peers. However, after attending a boutique business school in Philadephia, I have a somewhat more liberal view on things.

I think the difference between old money and new money is mainly geography as well as the industry in which their fortune was made, irrespective of actual chronological events. 

Any fortune made in industrials (US Steel), transportation (Railroads/Ports), metals & mining, oil & gas (Standard Oil), education, finance (John Pierpont Morgan/Rothschild/Lazard Freres) or real estate (Trump) is generally considered old money. Fortunes made in tech, biotech, AI/ML, sports, gaming are generally new money.

Additionally, geography matters. Families in New England of blue-blooded Mayflower stock from the British Empire are always old money, generally families in the Midwest are too. Families on the West Coast are always new money, families in the south are typically old money while Florida is typically new money. Families in former Dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Carribeans, etc) are almost always old money, same with other French/Spanish/Portugese/German/Italian colonies.