This ignores that wealth is relative. Your argument can also be used to argue that the U.S. has solved poverty, because poor people today can afford to eat, which wasn't true x years ago. It's not just about the absolute purchasing power, it's also about the relative social status and power. Not being in poverty doesn't mean much if you still don't hold any social or political power.

> Not being in poverty doesn't mean much if you still don't hold any social or political power.

Really? So if you can't have power, why bother not being poor? Having been below the poverty line and risen above it, this seems very bizarre to me, to say the least.

Maybe my wording was imprecise. Not being in poverty is better than being in poverty. Still, that's not the entire story.