To some extent, this is true, but it should never be used as an excuse for refusing to help those who are in poverty today. There are many in poverty today who

To some extent, this is true, but it should never be used as an excuse for refusing to help those who are in poverty today. There are many in poverty today who don't really have it better than 50 years ago. They're living under bridges, bouncing from shelter to shelter as they can, barely managing to get enough food to eat. There are many others in poverty who do, indeed, have it "better" in some senses (for instance, they may have a smartphone—some of the time, in between times when it gets stolen, or broken, or they can't pay for the service), but who are still in desperate straits. They're living in their car, working three part-time jobs just to be able to continue to live in their car as opposed to on the street like the first category. Or they're couch surfing, relying on the patience of the last couple of friends who haven't already kicked them out while they apply to job after job after job and continually get ghosted even for fast-food positions. Just because "poverty" in the 21st century doesn't look like the stereotypical Dickensian picture of starving children with nothing but a stick to play with doesn't mean it's not real poverty, and it doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to end it.