You know what, Jeff ... it's an example.
And nowhere did I say that it's a precise conversion that should be applied to food and boots.
But, you (unconstructively) criticize the analogy, without addressing the point I was making, at all.
It was a generalization making broad strokes to illustrate my point that they're Expensive, with a capital "E", and the majority of people just simply don't have a Cool Quarter Mil in gold just laying around. So, I used a rate that would make that point clear as an example.
It's not a direct ratio, or precise conversion statistic …
Just because you don't like the example doesn't make it a bad measure. It's a perfectly good measure - for what I was measuring. If you apply the analogy to something that it wasn't intended to compare, it's no longer applies, and becomes a logical fallacy.
The same thing would happen if one compared the growth in cost of a car from 1928 to 2018, then tried to apply the precise same measure to a gallon of milk, postage stamp, or a pair of leather boots, from one year to another.
Rates aren't consistent, and depend on the commodity, and depend on things like whether you're measuring actual cost, value, purchasing power, etc.
The whole point in the end, just because you don't like the example, and want to apply it to things it wasn't comparing, doesn't mean it's a bad example. But, I've shared my opinion, you've shared yours … and I think that we're good on that.
Let's try not to derail the thread on what type of conversion to use for comparison, and whose ideas are better. I'd be happy to hear from you in a PM/DM about it, so we don't overtake Dalilama's thread.