No, he is right on that

Two factors:

One, while First World living standards are of course desirable, they are not really necessary in the sense that Dissident is speaking about. Middle income countries have their primary necessities (food, water, access to energy, health and education) filled already. Sure, some of them have large populations of poorer sectors, but generally speaking, you only have to reach the level of economic development of, say, the countries in sky blue, and maybe the countries in green to achieve the kind of abundance Dissident speaks about. Now of course, we're talking about the poorer members of society living at roughly that range of material welfare - not everyone, from top 1% to bottom 1% - or at least I am not making that assumption that Dissident probably would. If anything, the First World is wasteful in several ways, and that only comes from abundance.

Two, you are also not considering PPP, or at least not mentioning it. (Neither does Dissident, but he has the pretext that he doesn't believe in money) If you are going to treat the world economy as one economy, you find that richer countries have lower PPP for their nominal dollars, and poorer countries have higher PPP for them. Obviously, this relates to the local labor unit costs and local land costs. In a world economy, this would imply that it is PPP-ly cheaper to reach the material welfare of a middle income country from a poor base, than the nominal dollars difference is. Of course, a global convergence of labor unit costs and land costs would be heavily skewed towards China and India (due to population size), so I humbly suggest that the world's values would approach them. In that case, you only need to develop nominally to the point where Chinese and Indians would have the material welfare of the citizens in sky blue countries. For poorer countries the way is longer, of course, but not as long as you make.