The most obvious thing that this fails to address is literally the largest expense that the vast majority of people have, and the need for it has not changed: housing.
The idea the Christie’s multi bedroom apartment would be as cheap as stated is laughable and demonstrably false.
The unwillingness of governments to include cost of housing in inflation calculations is more reflective of their pressure to make the landed happy than any attempt to reflect reality.
While you're right, bear in mind, the worldwide population was 1/8th what it is now 100 years ago. That would mean, on average, worldwide, using naive metrics, housing cost would be 1/8th what it is today, even adjusting for inflation. One thing to keep in mind, the population in the UK at that time was very high, the population replenished back to pre WW2 levels only in 2017 and that includes immigration that didn't exist back then, so it wouldn't have been 1/8th for her, only slightly less. But all in all, housing costs worldwide would've been significantly less back then.
No, I'm assuming that the available land has not increased. Historically until very recently (the past ~50 years) the vast majority of human beings built their own housing, available land would be the limiting factor and therefore most of the cost factor.
The idea the Christie’s multi bedroom apartment would be as cheap as stated is laughable and demonstrably false.
The unwillingness of governments to include cost of housing in inflation calculations is more reflective of their pressure to make the landed happy than any attempt to reflect reality.