Interesting thread, and I would definitely agree with the "shallow, materialistic, and immoral," summary. I blame bad TV programming (eg, Real Housewives) for at least two of those three factors.
However, on the cost of living in the middle class, it actually appears much the opposite, to me. Maybe folks are just living beyond their means, compared to my parents' generation, but they seem to be doing without less. Central air conditioning and two new cars seems to be the norm, along with a few wide-screen LCD's, computers, iPads, smart phones, and nice bicycles for the kids. I didn't know too many friends so well off in the 1970's / 80's.
Computers, TV's, bicycles, appliances... all the expensive things that fill the house of the average middle class family can be had for a very small fraction of what they cost our parents. I think each of our bicycles cost my dad close two days of his salary at the time, I just bought my son a bike for less than I make per hour, and my job title now is what his was then. My dad's 19" color TV in 1980 cost the same (not adjusted) as my new 70" LCD. I didn't know anyone who bought a new car before age 40, when I was growing up... now kids seem to be getting them as college graduation presents.
Coming around to your main point though, it's a real challenge to make kids understand the value of working for a dollar, and being frugal with what you have. Then again, maybe we're focused on preparing them for the world that was, rather than the world that is. The Amish near here had an enormous battle with the state many years back, over pulling their kids out of school after grade 8. The state argued that these kids wouldn't be prepared for life in this world. The Amish asked, "who's world, yours or ours?"
Me? I always liked the Cliff Huxtable model:
Theo: Dad, are we rich?
Cliff: No, you're poor. Your mother and I are rich, but you're poor.