You're denying its relevant right here. For starters, the cost of home ownership is not tracked by the CPI - rather rent and equivalent rent are. If we're disc

You're denying its relevant right here. For starters, the cost of home ownership is not tracked by the CPI - rather rent and equivalent rent are. If we're discussing wealth, that means something different than merely a level of income and expenses, but rather having resources (including saved resources) that give one economic power to make their own (usually better) choices. Being able to afford food and sundries is not wealth. Even buying premium brands or not worrying about sales does not imply wealth in and of itself. Being able to rent, even a nicer/bigger apartment than strictly necessary, is not wealth. Being able to buy a home, where you're now making larger-scale economic decisions (rather than merely accepting whatever your landlord has decided), that is wealth. And one of the bedrock assumptions of our capitalist economy is having this kind of distributed wealth where individuals are making decisions over their little domains - eg do I install these solar panels that will cost me much more money than I am paying for electricity right now, but will pay me back over a period of 10 years. This ties back to the failings of framing the CPI - big ticket purchases are infrequent and thus statistically making up a smaller portion of an average. But when an individual is staring them down, that increased big-ticket price becomes acutely relevant. When consumers then tend to settle for cheaper options, the aggregate amount spent goes down and the price inflation is then not reflected in the CPI. As just another metric we could give this a pass for the inherent difficulties of measuring such things. But as the metric is a critical part of the feedback path for monetary creation, it's exactly those shortcomings that become magnified.