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.