Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can certainly argue the technical merits of how they created their 'generation-weighted price index', but differential impacts of inflation seems plausible on the face of it. If you are looking for work in a big city, and big city real estate prices are growing much faster than nationwide, that is a real effect.
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 w…
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.