So while I concur with your thesis, that events like this can motivate fundamental changes in the structure of a society and its values, I'm going to nitpick th

So while I concur with your thesis, that events like this can motivate fundamental changes in the structure of a society and its values, I'm going to nitpick the "why", as I think the context of how these changes are forced is at the heart of understanding their nature. As such, I think your enumeration isn't quite accurate. Prior definitions of wealth only became impossible to obtain if you didn't have enough money. You cite land, certain notables in our own government owe much of their empire to land (real estate.) While there certainly is a transferrance of many technological goods via progress, key pillars such as social connections and leisure time continue to be significant carriers of value, and as you say, potentially become more difficult to obtain. If health care, education, housing, become marginalized, I don't believe it's as an anachronism, but out of unavailability, and new social signifiers will inevitably emerge out of our very animal nature, but within our new price range, and not out of lack of want for "more traditional luxuries". (to cite anecdata, the number of peers who are at peace with their housing/commute/work life situations, increasing inversely corresponding to pay)