
No, 'basics' do not cost $11,000 a year more than they did 18 months ago
The claim: Basic expenses cost a family $11,000 more a year than they did 18 months ago
An Oct. 16 post on Threads (direct link, archive link) makes a claim about the supposed cost of inflation.
'It costs a family of four $11,000 more a year to buy the exact same groceries and basics today as it did 18 months ago,' the post reads.
The post was liked more than 500 times in two weeks.
More from the Fact-Check Team: How we pick and research claims | Email newsletter | Facebook page
Our rating: False
Multiple measures put the annualized inflationary costs for basic goods and services around $3,000, not $11,000.
Slowing inflation narrows gap in cost of 'basics'
Inflation that began during the COVID-19 pandemic has shaken the U.S. economy for years, but recent data shows that the rate has slowed considerably in recent months. That decline is why the claim of an $11,000 hit to household budgets over the past year and a half misses the mark, multiple experts told USA TODAY
John Horn, an economics professor at Washington University in St. Louis, tackled the calculation using changes in the consumer price index as a measure of inflation. He said average monthly household spending in April 2023 was $6,272, which grew to $6,519 in September 2024. The $247 monthly difference in the same basket of goods and other "basics" – multiplying the monthly added costs by 12 – translates to an annualized increase in costs of $2,962.
Horn said the $11,000 figure for inflationary costs is closer to the mark when looking at inflation over the entire Biden administration. Average monthly consumer spending in January 2021 was $5,408, meaning it increased by $1,111 by September 2024. That translates into an annualized cost increase of slightly over $13,000.
Republican members of Congress' Joint Economic Committee used a slightly different basket of expenses than Horn in calculating the impact of inflation, using an undefined 'typical' household, and its results are similar.
The committee created a tracker for inflation costs in every state and nationally since January 2021, and it shows the annualized cost of goods today is about $3,300 higher than it was 18 months ago. At no point does the data show annualized inflation costs growing near $11,000 between any dates 18 months apart.
Fact check: Post misleads on funds for internet access, EV charging stations
Zachary Milne, a senior economist and research analyst with the nonpartisan Common Sense Institute, said the committee's calculations seem to be a fair way of showing the change in the cumulative costs of shelter, energy, transportation and food. But he said a better measure of the impact of inflation would be to look at the cumulative change in costs from January 2021 to today, while also reflecting that average wages have gone up and inflation would still be around 1.5% to 2% annually in a typical year.
Still, the specific impact claimed in the social media post is definitely wrong, he said.
'Inflation has certainly cooled,' he told USA TODAY. 'The increases from 18 months ago are not going to be as dramatic as when looking at the 18 months up to November 2022.'
Reilly White, a finance professor at the University of New Mexico, pointed out that inflation, as measured by the consumer price index, was 4.3% over the last 18 months.
'For the $11k figure to make sense on an annualized basis, an average consumer would have to be spending $458k a year – but the average household only makes $80k,' he wrote in an email.
He pointed to another measure of inflation – the more than 19% increase in personal consumption expenditures cited by the House Budget Committee – as a more complete way of looking at the impact of inflation during the Biden administration. According to that measure, the average family of four is paying more than $17,000 more per year than they did in January 2021.
In other words, inflation is certainly up since Biden took office, but not nearly to the degree this post claims over the last 18 months.
USA TODAY could not reach the Threads user who posted the claim for comment.
Our fact-check sources:
Thank you for supporting our journalism. You can subscribe to our print edition, ad-free app or e-newspaper here.
USA TODAY is a verified signatory of the International Fact-Checking Network, which requires a demonstrated commitment to nonpartisanship, fairness and transparency. Our fact-check work is supported in part by a grant from Meta.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Will Musk unfollow Trump? Here are the 6 most intriguing wagers gathering steam on betting markets.
Online bettors are placing wagers on possible outcomes of the feud between Musk and Trump. The two have been embroiled in a public fight this week about the Republican tax bill. Bets on whether Musk will unfollow Trump or suspend his X account popped up on sites like Polymarket. Elon Musk's squabble with the US President has investors racing to place bets on potential outcomes. Online betting forums like Polymarket and Kalshi saw a flurry of wagers on Thursday and Friday revolving around the billionaire and President Donald Trump, who have been publicly sparring on social media over the Republican tax and spending bill. The feud, which started earlier this week after Musk called the sweeping GOP budget bill an "abomination"," and culminated with Musk amplifying calls for Trump's impeachment, represents a major turning point in their relationship — something that's alarmed Tesla investors. Here are some of the wildest wagers that have appeared on betting platforms this week: Investors think it's unlikely. The priced-in odds of the scenario hovered around 27% on Friday on Polymarket. The odds that Donald Trump's X account will be suspended were initially 7.5%, but they dropped to 1% on Friday. As their feud raged on Thursday, Musk created a poll on X asking if it was time to create a new political party in the US "that actually represents the 80% in the middle." By Friday, the poll had garnered more than 5 million responses, with more than 80% of users voting yes. Bettors on Polymarket think the odds that Musk will create a new political party by June are 7%, but higher as the year goes on, rising to 21% for him to form a new party by the end of 2025. Musk and Trump have each signaled some openness to making amends. On X, Musk replied to a post by Bill Ackman, which suggested that the two should "make peace." "You're not wrong," Musk said in a post. Speaking to Politico Thursday night, Trump downplayed the public conflict to reporters, adding that his relationship with Musk was "going very well, never done better." White House aides said that Trump and Musk had a call scheduled on Friday, Politico reported, but separate reports on Friday said that no such call had been scheduled and that Trump is "not interested" in speaking with Musk. On Kalshi, the odds that Trump and Elon will publicly reconcile by the end of next week dropped to 14% on Friday, down from 36% earlier in the day. The priced-in odds that Trump will end up suing Elon Musk this year hovered around 17% on the betting platform Kalshi. One of the wildest bets—that Trump would have Musk sent to jail—had surprisingly high odds on Polymarket as the fight between Trump and Musk dragged on. The percent chance of such an outcome dropped, however, from 10.5% to 4% on Friday. Read the original article on Business Insider Sign in to access your portfolio


CNBC
26 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump says he has no plans to speak to Musk as feud persists
President Donald Trump said on Friday that he has no plans to speak with Elon Musk, signaling the president and his former ally might not resolve their feud over a sweeping tax-cut bill any time soon. Addressing reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump said he wasn't "thinking about" the Tesla CEO. "I hope he does well with Tesla," Trump said. However, Trump said a review of Musk's extensive contracts with the federal government was in order. "We'll take look at everything," the president said. "It's a lot of money." Trump may get rid of the red Tesla Model S that he bought in March after showcasing Musk's electric cars on the White House lawn, a White House official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Musk, for his part, did not directly address Trump but kept up his criticism of the massive Republican tax and spending bill that contains much of Trump's domestic agenda. On his social-media platform X, Musk amplified remarks made by others that Trump's "big beautiful bill" would hurt Republicans politically and add to the nation's $36.2 trillion debt. He replied "exactly" to a post by another X user that said Musk had criticized Congress and Trump had responded by criticizing Musk personally. Musk also declared it was time for a new political party in the United States "to represent the 80% in the middle!" People who have spoken to Musk said his anger has begun to recede and they think he will want to repair his relationship with Trump, according to one person who has spoken to Musk's entourage. The White House statements came one day after the two men battled openly in an extraordinary display of hostilities that marked a stark end to a close alliance. Tesla stock rose on Friday, clawing back some losses from Thursday's session, when it dropped 14% and lost $150 billion in value, the largest single-day decline in the company's history. Musk's high-profile allies have largely stayed silent during the feud. But one, investor James Fishback, called on Musk to apologize. "President Trump has shown grace and patience at a time when Elon's behavior is disappointing and frankly downright disturbing," Fishback said in a statement. Musk, the world's richest man, bankrolled a large part of Trump's 2024 presidential campaign. Trump named Musk to head a controversial effort to downsize the federal workforce and slash spending. Trump feted Musk at the White House a week ago as he wrapped up his role as head of the Department of Government Efficiency. Musk cut only about half of 1% of total spending, far short of his brash plans to axe $2 trillion from the federal budget. Since then, Musk has denounced Trump's tax-cut and spending bill as a "disgusting abomination." His opposition is complicating efforts to pass the bill in Congress where Republicans hold a slim majority. Trump's bill narrowly passed the House of Representatives last month and is now before the Senate, where Republicans say they will make further changes. Nonpartisan analysts say the measure would add $2.4 trillion in debt over 10 years. House Speaker Mike Johnson said he has been texting with Musk and hopes the dispute is resolved quickly. "I don't argue with him about how to build rockets and I wish he wouldn't argue with me about how to craft legislation and pass it," Johnson said on CNBC. Trump had initially stayed quiet while Musk campaigned to torpedo the bill, but broke his silence on Thursday, telling reporters he was "very disappointed" in Musk. Musk, who spent nearly $300 million in last year's elections, said Trump would have lost without his support and suggested he should be impeached. Trump suggested he would terminate government contracts with Musk's businesses, which include rocket company SpaceX and its satellite unit Starlink. The billionaire then threatened to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, the only U.S. spacecraft capable of sending astronauts to the International Space Station. Musk later backed off that threat. Musk had been angered when Trump over the weekend revoked his nomination of Musk ally Jared Isaacman to head the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Two sources with direct knowledge of the dispute said White House personnel director Sergio Gor had helped turn Trump against Isaacman by highlighting his past donations to Democrats. Musk and Gor had been at odds since the billionaire criticized Gor's pace of hiring at a March cabinet meeting, the two sources said. A White House spokesperson, Steven Cheung, praised Gor's efforts to staff the administration but did not address his relationship with Musk. A prolonged feud could make it harder for Republicans to keep control of Congress in next year's midterm elections if Musk withholds financial support or other major Silicon Valley business leaders distance themselves from Trump. Musk had already said he planned to curtail his political spending, and on Tuesday he called for "all politicians who betrayed the American people" to be fired next year. His involvement with the Trump administration has provoked widespread protests at Tesla sites, driving down sales while investors fretted that Musk's attention was too divided.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
With $122M spent, the 2025 governor's race is already New Jersey's most expensive
Spending totals for this campaign have already more than doubled those in every gubernatorial primary since at least the turn of the millennium. (Dana DiFilippo | New Jersey Monitor) Candidates and outside groups have spent more than $122.5 million on this year's gubernatorial primary, a total greater than any other in state history and one that stands to rise in the race's closing days, the New Jersey Election Law Commission said Friday. The spending total includes $54.9 million from the candidates themselves and $67.7 million from outside groups. Between them, $14 million remained unspent, and that number could swell from late-arriving donations to independent expenditure groups, which face no contribution limits. Voting is underway and ends Tuesday. Spending totals for this campaign have already more than doubled those in every gubernatorial primary since at least the turn of the millennium and have outpaced even the most expensive gubernatorial general election. That November 2005 race between Democrat Jon Corzine and Republican Doug Forrester cost about $98 million after adjustments to inflation, the commission said. This year's 11 gubernatorial candidates had about $6.7 million left in reserves on May 27, the last date covered by regular pre-election campaign finance disclosures. The commission credited the number of candidacies and a larger gubernatorial fund match for the increase. Candidates who meet fundraising and spending thresholds can receive up to $5.5 million in matching public dollars for the primary in exchange for observing an $8.7 million primary spending cap and participating in debates hosted by the commission. Five of the eight candidates have maxed out or nearly maxed out their matching funds. Of the $54.9 million spent by the candidates, Democrats Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop and Rep. Mikie Sherrill lead the pack, with Fulop spending nearly $8.7 million and Sherrill shelling out $8.5 million as of May 27. Republican Jack Ciattarelli, who unsuccessfully ran for governor in 2017 and 2021, spent $8 million, followed by Rep. Josh Gottheimer, a Democrat, at $7.9 million. Spending by outside groups is dominated by Working New Jersey, a super PAC funded by an independent expenditure group linked to statewide teachers union the New Jersey Education Association. It is responsible for more than half of the outside spending in the race, with at least $37.5 million boosting Democrat Sean Spiller, the union's president. Spiller's own campaign has spent only $342,059. Spiller's Democratic rivals have seen less but still sizable support from independent expenditure groups. They have boosted Rep. Josh Gottheimer to the tune of $11.6 million; Fulop, $7.4 million; former state Sen. Steve Sweeney, $4.3 million; and Sherrill, $3.8 million. A group run in part by Trump ally Kellyanne Conway has spent $1.3 million supporting Ciattarelli's campaign. Gubernatorial totals far exceed fundraising and spending on this year's Assembly races (all 80 seats in the chamber are on the ballot this year). Not counting independent expenditures, Assembly candidates have raised nearly $26.3 million and spent about $15.4 million, the commission said. Most of that money, $20.8 million, has flowed to incumbents. Collectively, challengers have raised just under $5.5 million. The ratio is similarly split along party lines. Democratic candidates account for $21.6 million of the funds raised, while only $4.7 million went to Republicans. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX