up to you. you can look at the real world prices yourself, or ignore that in favor of the entity that has incentive to downplay inflation.

But I don't because it literally takes an entire government agency to do it right. The incentives might be misaligned, but the BLS is a large enough entity that if there really were problems with their methodology, it would be publicized. Short of that, I'm more inclined to believe the BLS over a random commenter.

> But I don't because it literally takes an entire government agency to do it right.

It doesn't really. If you track your expenses consistently over the years (gnucash et.al.) you can trivially plot the increase in cost of living and the acceleration of that increase last handful of years.

That's fraught will all sorts of biases. What if your shopping habits changed? eg. you started becoming more health-conscious and started buying healthier (and more expensive) foods. The BLS accounts for all of that by measuring the price of a fixed basket of goods, which mitigates those effects. The same can't be said of your budgeting spreadsheet. Or maybe your area is undergoing gentrification and the discount supermarket got replaced with a whole foods. Your grocery spending might have went up 50%, but that doesn't mean it's a meaningful representation of what's happening across the country.

Yes, of course, because government agencies have your best interests in mind.

As opposed to random hn commenters who possibly have an agenda?

Random HN commenters might have an agenda (what would it be?). Government agencies definitely have an agenda.

everybody has agenda. its why its a lame point in a discussion. I think its called "ad hominem"

https://bookofbadarguments.com/

>Random HN commenters might have an agenda

They're also anonymous, so you should assume the worst. This is especially true when the supporting evidence is suspect (ie. a bunch of arbitrary picked numbers). On the other hand the BLS's methodology is documented (https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/cpi/), so I'm willing to give them a pass even though their incentives might be skewed.

>(what would it be?)

their beliefs? "agenda" here doesn't have to be something nefarious. an anti-vaxxer's agenda is anti-vaccine, but that doesn't mean they're scheming to get everyone infected.