Not just higher wages. It's also the welfare state that gives "proletarians " in the first world a comparatively cushy lifestyle (in comparison to 19th cent standards or third world).

The welfare state and the relative higher standard of living in the west come from the same material causes, that of an increased amount of organic composition of capital and productivity of labour. This also means that in the western states, there is less involved in manufacturing, even if it is still the largest component of economic output.

That's a very broad definition of a proletarian, and one that differs from Engels:

The is the same definition I used, I just used less words.

No, most of those gains happened in the early 20th cent when workers faced real immiseration. And since the end of the 19th cent hasn't there been a conflict between hardline communists who seek revolution versus people like trade unions etc who also worked for the benefits of the working class but sought reformist gains as opposed to revolution.

Gains that occurred because of the increasing productivity of capital and of a way to keep those who would rebel tied into the capitalist mode of production, by the very same labour aristocracy and opportunists. And you can't have a communist revolution without the material situation for a communist revolution. Such as I have said.

Is a hollywood screen writer making 300 k a year a proletariat?

Because this is totally a realistic career choice that is occupied by so many people who are being paid off to subvert the communist movement.

Is a trial lawyer making the same a proletariat?

Again, this is a ridiculous example. Do you think there are no lawyers in third world countries?

Are google engineers making the same a proletariat?

As I have said, it doesn't matter how much a person is paid. This is against what Marx and Engels described about wages. A google engineer, for all I know of a subject, if they sell their ability to labour for a wage, is a proletarian. Skilled labour is still labour.