Well... sort of, but why call it 'inflation'? That certain age groups tended to act in certain ways and were impacted by differences in price trends in different ways -- that's accurate. What's misleading or confusing is to then redefining the already-muddled term of 'inflation' from an absolute index to multiple indices and then trying to say that because Index B went up more than Index A that some group of people were much more impacted by Index B than another people were by Index A.

The Fed has a price index that most entities in the US use to measure what it calls inflation. There are plenty of arguments out there that go into detail about how that index can be misleading and how certain institutional prerogatives encourage the people who maintain that index to keep it misleading (e.g. many entities are obligated to increase salaries and pension payouts tied to the CPI).

> why call it 'inflation'

Sibling comment also asks this question, so I'll just respond here: inflation measures the purchasing power of some nominal currency, but that measurement is always relative to a basket of goods.

CPI is a basket of 'typical' consumer goods that an average person might buy. But if you're not the average consumer, then in what sense is CPI relevant to you, rather than to a macroeconomist?

I agree that there's a risk of confusion, but I think the confusion is inherent in what we're trying to measure (I have some dollars, how much stuff [that I care about] can I buy with them?), and not mainly a function of terminological confusion.

You could imagine a service like Mint that has all your spending data and calculating your own 'personal CPI', privacy considerations notwithstanding.

not to mention CPI dosent include costs like education, housing or healthcare, which is completely absurd.

That's a good way of putting it.

The various market baskets that make up the various inflation measures contain goods that will matter to some people more than others. And some of the big ticket items will disproportionately affect certain groups.

Want to live in a high-cost urban area and don't already own a home? Of course, rising housing prices will affect you more than someone who already owns in one of those areas or lives somewhere else.

Are pre-college? Education costs more relatively than it used to?

But, yeah, I don't think inflation measures ever claimed to be equably applicable to everyone, especially those measures that excluded some of the major costs precisely because they affect different groups.

>big city real estate prices are growing much faster than nationwide

Important point to make is that is not inflation. Inflation is a decrease in the purchasing power of a currency, and it can be inferred by the cost of many products going up across the entire market that currency is used. But one product going up in one segment of the whole economy is not inflation. What you're referring to is more accurately described as a local cost of living.