I think this is generally right, and if "real" CPI was much higher than calculated you would see it eventually since the difference between real and calculated would be compounded over time.

However, because CPI is done at the national level while people typically live in one area, it is possible that HN readers in SF or wherever experience higher inflation than the CPI calculates. Certainly their rents have gone up much more than someone's in Kansas City.

> However, because CPI is done at the national level while people typically live in one area, it is possible that HN readers in SF or wherever experience higher inflation than the CPI calculates.

It could even be that most people experience above-average inflation, because there are places with relatively low population but very low, relative, inflation dragging the averages down.

If that is the case, it might be possible to alter how geographic aggregation works to calculate a CPI-for-median-consumer that better captures the common experience. This might be better for some policy purposes, as well.

When you see news that say rent prices go trough roof, it usually means new leases. If new leases go up 10% and only 5% of renters sign a new lease, that's only 0.5% increase to rent prices.