I've only skimmed, but my money is on @oren_cass NOT overturning decades of very technical research by PhD economists. Especially if this is what he's saying.
The consumer basket reflects, theoretically, a constant level of utility. Something new that is pricier and nicer enters into the consumer basket, replacing some older stuff (which either goes away or sees consumers substitute away from it).
If the newer, nicer thing has the same "price per quality" as the older stuff, then the price of a fixed level of utility has not changed. If it has a higher "price per quality" than the older stuff, the price has risen (inflation and the cost of living have gone up).
Will some people be unable to afford the newer, nicer thing? Of course (though it will get markedly cheaper over time in many cases, such as most of what you'd get at Best Buy).
Many more people WILL be able to afford it, which is why it will show up in the consumer basket, which is driven by data the federal government collects.
If older, less nice things go away, and many people have no choice but to buy the newer nicer thing but wish they could buy the old thing, then the price of maintaining utility will go up.
Let's say that there are people who would prefer older, smaller homes that are no longer available. If so, we'd expect to see the price of housing to rise, because the price of getting a given level of utility from housing has risen.
Lo and behold, the price of housing has risen faster than other prices! Oren cherry picks some other things whose price has risen more than prices generally. His story may be right for health care & higher ed (but I doubt there are a lot of people pining for 1950s style medicine)
But if you're serious about measuring the cost of living, you don't cherry-pick items. And you read up on the technical details of price measurement.
Anyway, Oren has clearly been searching for a way to justify his priors about living standards. He previously did so by showing that the ratio of men's income has fallen relative to the poverty line.
The problem (one problem) there is that the poverty line is adjusted over time using the CPI, which overstates inflation and thus makes the poverty line reflect a rising standard of living over time rather than a constant one. No escaping inflation measurement.
Buy really, cost-of-living measurement is incredibly technical. I'm NOT an expert. But think of your favorite economist on Twitter. It's almost surely the case that THEY aren't an expert either. We're talking about a tiny group of very smart math nerds.
For more info, read the Christopher Jencks chapter in 1987's Politics of Numbers. Or the National Academy of Sciences report At What Price (2002). And continue to take the national conservative take on economics with a giant cave-sized mound of salt grains.
