Hardware isn't a problem. I run a full node on a cheap netbook with an external SSD, and I do it over McDonalds free WiFi. I've got anothe node on a Windows 10 notebook, and that is also kept up to date over free WiFi.
That is the current situation. But there are two things to consider:
1) Blocks are about ~1MB only in the last 1-2 years. The years before they were much smaller. So in one year the blockchain - only with 1MB blocks - will already be much heavier than now - and also much more difficult to syncronize.
2) Segwit alone will already give us blocks with a size from 1,7 to 2,x MB (4MB max, but I don't believe we'll see that). If Segwit2x comes, then we'll potentially have 3,4 to 4,x MB blocks with a maximum of 8 MB. If Bitcoin experiences a yearly 40-50% transaction growth like until now, then we will have these blocks full in about 2-3 years, and the blockchain then will be at least 3 times as heavy than now and will keep growing. Again, storage isn't the problem - the problem is the initial block download/verification (first sync) and the propagation and verification of new blocks. Now do the math for 10MB+ blocks.
Big blockers are hoping for hardware improvements, that's true - but I would say, better let the hardware improvements come and adjust the block size _after_ we know we can handle these sizes.
This proposal, where miners can vote for 10kB increases every 2 weeks, is just conservative enough to give us time to do that. Segwit2x, for me, is the most "big blockerish" proposal I would accept to avoid a chain split - nothing more.