MINDSETDays to result81% confidence

Cheap Luxuries vs. Expensive Fundamentals Diagnostic

Standard of living is a tale of two baskets — and they moved in opposite directions.

Problem it solves

false-progress narrative driven by single-basket comparison

Best for

Anyone debating whether life is 'better' or 'worse' than 30 years ago — or making personal decisions about where to spend

Not ideal for

People who already track spending by category and know their housing/childcare/healthcare share

Overview

Why this framework exists

Nicholas surfaces an insight he heard but couldn't attribute: 'luxuries became much cheaper and much more accessible — but the necessities of life became so much more expensive.' A flat-screen TV that cost £2,000 in 1995 costs £200 now; a flight to Europe is sometimes cheaper than a train to Manchester. Meanwhile, rent has gone from ~8% of pay in the 1970s to near 50% in UK cities, university is paid, and childcare is the price of a second mortgage.

The diagnostic is to split your spending — and any 'are we better off?' debate — into two baskets: discretionary luxuries (electronics, travel, eating out, streaming) and structural fundamentals (housing, education, childcare, healthcare, retirement security). Headline inflation and 'standard of living' aggregates blur the two; splitting them clarifies what's actually happening.

For an individual, the framework prevents the slow trap of 'I'm doing fine — look at all this stuff I have' while being structurally locked out of housing or retirement. For a public conversation, it shows why both 'we've never had it better' and 'everything is worse' can be simultaneously true.

Core principles

5 total
  1. Aggregate 'standard of living' figures average two baskets that moved in opposite directions.
  2. Cheap luxuries lift daily mood; expensive fundamentals lower long-run security.
  3. Both 'we've never had it better' and 'everything is worse' can be true at once when basket-split.
  4. Optimising the cheap basket while ignoring the expensive one feels like progress and isn't.
  5. Structural-basket inflation hits younger cohorts harder because they're earlier in the buy cycle.

Steps

5 steps
  1. Split your spending into two baskets
    Take last year's spending. Bucket A = housing, education, childcare, healthcare, retirement contributions. Bucket B = electronics, travel, dining out, streaming, hobbies. Calculate the % of net income going to each.
  2. Compare to the same split 30 years ago
    Look up rent-to-pay ratios, university costs, childcare costs from the 1990s for your country. Compare to today. The structural basket has typically risen 2-5x in share-of-income; the discretionary basket has typically fallen.
    Pro tipONS, BLS, and OECD all publish housing-cost-to-income series. Use them as a baseline rather than personal anecdote.
  3. Identify your false-progress traps
    Where are you optimising the cheap basket (better TV, more streaming services, cheaper flight) while letting the expensive basket erode (lower pension contribution, missed property-buying window, no education fund)?
    WarningLifestyle-creep tends to land in the cheap basket because each individual purchase feels small — the cumulative drag is real.
  4. Reallocate at the margin
    You don't need to give up the cheap basket — its absolute cost is small. Cut the lowest-value items there and reallocate to the expensive basket (pension, deposit, childcare fund). Even 5% of income reallocated compounds.
    Pro tipSet up the reallocation as automatic — increase pension contribution by the cancelled subscription's monthly cost the same day.
  5. Use the diagnostic on policy debates
    When someone says 'people have never had it so good' or 'everything is worse', ask which basket. Cheap-basket-only arguments and expensive-basket-only arguments are both half-truths.

Checklist

Saved in your browser

Examples

3 cases
TV vs. starter home

A flat-screen TV that cost £2,000 in 1995 now costs £200, with better quality. A 'starter home' that cost £30,000 in 1995 now costs £200,000+. Same person, same era — opposite price trajectories.

OutcomeThe cheap basket gets dramatically cheaper while the expensive basket gets dramatically more expensive — averaging them produces a 'standard of living' figure that hides both moves.
London wages, Manchester rent

Remote work post-Covid lets a worker earn London wages from Manchester. The cheap-basket logic (cost of living) gets optimised; the expensive-basket logic (housing access in earning region) gets bypassed.

OutcomeA genuine cohort-specific advantage — but only available in certain industries, and concentration risk if remote-work norms reverse.
Daniel's mum and the red pepper

Daniel's mum told him she didn't eat a red pepper until she was 25 — exotic food then. Today red peppers are commodity supermarket items. Meanwhile, the same generation could buy a house on one income, which is now unthinkable for most.

OutcomeLiving standards genuinely improved on the cheap basket and genuinely deteriorated on the expensive one — both true.

Common mistakes

4 traps
Comparing nominal grocery prices and calling it inflation
Most family-budget conversations focus on the cheap basket because it's visible weekly. The structural basket (rent, mortgage, childcare) determines long-run outcomes but only updates annually.
Boomer-style 'I never went on holiday' advice
The advice 'cut holidays and you can buy a house' worked when housing was 8% of pay. At 50%, cutting holidays adds a rounding error to a deposit. The math has changed; the advice hasn't.
Treating cheap-basket consumption as a moral failing
Going to Nando's isn't why the next generation can't buy a house. The structural basket is the binding constraint; blaming the cheap basket is misdiagnosis.
Ignoring the cheap basket's social compounding
Conversely — when 7-quid-a-pint and £15 cinema tickets compound, younger cohorts go out less, which has its own social and mental-health costs. The cheap basket isn't infinitely cheap once it crosses certain thresholds.

Origin story

How this framework came to be

Nicholas paraphrases an insight he picked up but couldn't recall the source for: 'one of the big changes has been that like luxuries have become much cheaper and much more accessible.' Sitting next to it is the data he gathered making a separate housing video — UK rent went from ~8% of pay in the 1970s to near 50% in cities. The diagnostic emerges from holding both facts at once.

Source

Traced to primary
Source · PODCAST
Have Boomers Rigged The System?
Tom Nicholas · 2025
Open source →

Related frameworks

Browse all Mindset →