Earlier quoted context omitted.
You probably could too if you accepted the living standards of the 1960s and lived in a low cost of living area. I know people that happily make some version of that tradeoff, though I wouldn't personally.
"Living standards" is such a weaselly term here. Yeah maybe you can afford a dishwasher and a car and nice clothes, but what about when you step outside your door? Being in a city with interesting things to do is an intangible good that many people like, compared to being in a smaller town with fewer amenities (nevermind well-paid jobs). It used to be affordable, now it's expensive. That's a regression no matter how…
As someone who lives in a small town in the middle of nowhere, I'd argue that the well-paid jobs part is our biggest struggle. We might be somewhat unique compared to some other small towns, but we have a lot going on - theater, live music, civic groups, outdoor recreation, surprisingly good restaurants - there's plenty to do here, but there's also no question that our largest growing demographic group is people who made their money elsewhere. As both you and the poster below you comment though - neither the big city nor small towns offer much of a refuge for people these days; our system is squeezing every bit of "value" out of workers, to our detriment