Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're making a mistake trying to apply something like Moore's law to a middle class lifestyle. Niche technological advancements don't necessarily translate to higher standards of living. If you're thinking the middle class life will simply scale the way hard drives and TV resolutions do you're in for a big surprise. I understand that many of the things we think we "need" or want become very relative over tim…
I'm not attempting to apply Moore's law, merely the past 40 years of growth to the next 40 (just as the original poster tried to do). In any case, the point I'm making is that "middle class life" needs a time period to be attached. "Middle class health care 1970" would be pretty cheap today - any medicine available back then is out of patent, and dying of untreatable cancer is pretty cheap. "Shelter 2010" is 60% bigg…
I question whether availability of drugs is the best indicator of overall health.
We are also a lot more sedentary, the quality of our food is probably not as a good, and we are a lot heavier. Given that, how many drugs do we need to just break even, health wise, with where we were in 1970?
"as opposed to a plasma screen with playstation today"
It would be an interesting psychology study to figure out if a kid with an Atari in the 1970s was objectively less happy and fulfilled than a kid with a plasma screen and playstation today. I suspect it is the relative excitement of being one of the first to get a game before your friends is a bigger factor. I guess it's a little late to start that study at this point, however.
My overall point is that I think comparing quality of life across eras is more complex than just comparing square footage, drug prices, and pixel counts. Unless I misunderstand your point.