I would argue poor people now are living more lavish lifestyles than ever before.
There is a reason the average house size used to be like half the size it is now. Entire families used to own 1 car. People didn't have computers, phones, tvs, etc.
Buying power isn't the problem, it is people believing they are entitled (despite being poor) to a much much better lifestyle than the poor ever used to have.
I remember reading back in 1900 you need to work only two or three years on a minimum wage to afford buying a house on London or Birmingham. Try to do the same now: the cost of living has increased so much it basically has wiped out most real gains in earnings for decades or even longer, for the average fellow. It's not people's faults they own smartphones instead of having their own properties, since the latter is so far beyond their expectations now they won't save money for it and will buy other stuff instead.
Besides, I wouldn't necessarily call owning computers and phones and TVs having a "much better lifestyle" than before. Would you choose to live with all your gadgets and abdicate running water and heating? I bet you would agree, then, that two simple urban innovations of the 19th century, which were granted back then when you bought a house, are much more important instead. So, the way people are able to afford not the essentials but only the superflous is indeed a very significant issue.