Also, if you were in the US in the 1960s, I can well understand why "eating in any restaurant you wanted" would not necessarily have appealed much... the food of the era was... adequate.
I think the experiences were not as readily available versus the stuff as you may be thinking. To the extent that they were available, they were taken. Piling your family into the station wagon and driving around for three weeks used to be a lot more common, I think. But that's not "an extravagent European vacation". The relative prices of things have changed a lot in the past century.
(And to be clear, I mean, relative to each other, e.g., "how many years in college is a trip to Europe", not in absolute inflation terms. A thing that has gone up a bit faster than inflation is still relatively cheaper than a thing that has gone up way faster than inflation.)
But even with that perspective, it still begs the question that, given a healthy dose of disposable income, why did so many people seem to choose a $1500 minor TV upgrade or a new $3000 couch instead of, I don't know, an extravagant European vacation? Eating at any restaurant you want whenever you want? It's really that divide that baffles me - the experience-spenders (me, hi) versus the stuff-buyers. But maybe that's more of an urban/suburban divide than a generational divide.