Additionally, only a small percentage of grads major in the humanities and social sciences despite all the hype and blame such subjects get . https://greyenlightenment.com/how-popular-are-gender-studies...

most people major in more 'actionable' subjects such as business, nursing, phycology, etc.

Psychology is equivalent to humanities imo only because you need a graduate degree to actually get a job in that field.

From what I recall, business degrees both dwarf all other types of degrees, and are not really considered actionable.

There are dozens of sub 100k homes where I live and plenty of nice apartments sub $800. And that's a midwest state known for having some of the highest real estate taxes in the country.

what kind of life did they lead? is it comprable to life as we know it now?

You can live that kind of life now, but it's not the default. You'd have only one car. You wouldn't have the latest anything, whether car, computer, or sneakers. You might not even have cable. But yes, I think you can do it. In fact, my cousin-in-law has done so. (He may have an AA degree - not sure.)

So poverty/quality of life is a measure/function of comparison with the highest quality of life available to the wealthiest demographic. Would that be a right way to phrase it?

That is why poor in India is diff from poor in California. Even though to the poor in India, the Californian poverty seems like the stuff of kings. Etc.

That isn't the way I would phrase it, but it has some truth to it.

In the 1950s, in the US, you could live on one income of a high-school graduate. Today, you still can... but you have to live a 1950s lifestyle.

But if you look at what the wealthiest (or even the upper middle class) have, no, you can't do that. If that becomes your measure of "how you're supposed to live", then no, you can't live on one income.