I was asking you to define the premises under which you are arguing, not to defer to some abstract third party.
As the argument becomes deeper, at some point you either need to write a book, or point to someone else who already did that.
Nobody here is flirting with the past, I wouldn't want to switch with my grandfather. However, if you want simple facts then yes, nobody owned a cell phone in 1976 mostly because the first commercially available cell phone hit the market in 1983. But in 1976 the father could sustain his family and his house and his car, while today father and mother working is the most common family.
If you look at food and rent, the total amount of income that gets put towards it has remained largely stable, or dropped slightly. So that is true. We also have fewer actually really poor people in the west, few people here die of starvation and live in slums.
However, we also have a much smaller middle class than we used to, and a much larger low-income sector where both parents work and/or people work two or even three jobs. And we know that the creation of the low-income sector was not an accident, because our politicians have actively and openly moved on this, and are on record saying so much. And that is the race to the bottom - intentionally lowering incomes in an attempt to remain competitive internationally, while ignoring that you don't really want to have the same living conditions as those countries you're trying to compete with on income do.
That is what I define as insanity. Trying to beat China without realizing that none of us actually want to live there.
This is not about staying in the past - it is about making a different choice for the future. Some countries did and do, and they are doing quite well. In Europe, Scandinavia is a lot better off than central and southern Europe, for example. Education, average income, living quality - whatever your measure, Sweden or Norway beat Italy or Spain in each and every one, and France and Germany in most.