I'm the opposite, lived most of my life on the West coast and then moved to the East coast. Some time zone related things that I've noticed:
-
I love to start work early and end work early, so there was a period of time where I could work 6am to 3pm and still be online later than many of my east coast coworkers. This schedule was ideal for me. Now I have to work until 5 or 6pm every day and I don't like that very much.
-
I could get up and trade stocks early in the morning, which is convenient for me because I don't do a lot of stock trading and don't need to stay on top of it throughout the day. Now I get up and think, "I need to make that transaction later today", then 4pm rolls around and I realize I've forgotten to do it yet again.
-
Not a time zone thing, but I've been to Hawaii once and would love to go back. When I was in California, it was a 5-6 hour flight, now its more like 12 hours. I'm not willing to make that trip. I do have the option to go to the Caribbean or Europe instead, which is nice though (if I ever get around to it).
-
I don't watch sports, but I always thought of the Super Bowl being an afternoon game. Then I moved East and realized people were staying up past midnight to watch the game (and party) and then trying to go to work or school Monday morning. No impact for me, but for my lifestyle, afternoon games would be preferable.
-
I used to do a lot of online gaming with people from all over the US and Europe. Lots of my friends would stay up very late or even all night gaming. I could keep up with them when it meant staying up until 10-12pm (my time). Staying up until 2 or 3am would not work for me. I don't play online games anymore, but that would be a challenge for me now.
Yep, this is such a huge impact on the apparent inflation rate. It is an absolutely valid thing to measure, but I love your point about how the market has essentially shifted to only selling luxury products. You either get to pay luxury prices or do without.
Other challenges with CPI are substitution and owner's equivalent rent.
With substitution, economists look at changing purchase patterns and adjust the basket of goods included in the calculation. For example, if you used to spend $20 per week on steak, but now you spend $20 per week on chicken, the economists say your preference changed and there was no inflation. In some cases, this might be true, but in others it could be that the price of meat went up significantly and you switched to something cheaper because you can't afford the higher prices. If you're talking about the fact that nobody is buying 8-tracks anymore, then substitution is certainly valid, but that's not always the case.
In the case of housing, up until the early 1980s, CPI included home prices in the calculation. Then they switched to an estimate of what you would pay in rent for your house rather than the price of the house. This flattens out the CPI movement when home prices go up and down. Is it valid? Maybe? Probably to the economists at least, but not to anyone who wants to buy a home. On the flip side, if you already own a home, home price inflation is kind of irrelevant in the short to medium term because your cost doesn't necessarily change (other than insurance and taxes).