But, it's not.
2 major flaws.
The $700 is per year, not per month.
And, it assumes inflation would have been zero. Under Biden, the administration got it down to 2.9%. Very, very good, but not close to zero.
The article is simply ClickBait.

I would have to spend nearly $24,000 per month in order for costs to go up $700

This is far fetched. It may be the case soon though with the GOP collapsing our healthcare system.

kind of obvious false claim helps us. I would agree over the last 4 years maybe but this year no way.

that the annual inflation rate is 3%......then you are correct..........The Consumer Price Index, a key to the inflation rate, underwent major manipulation during the Reagan years, and it has never been straightened out since. Reagan inflation, as I remember, was 16%, he didn't do anything about the inflation, he just got his people to recalculate how it was figured, and what items would no longer be included..........

AND, don't forget about "shrink flation"

I don't consider the annual inflation rate to includejust food.......I have seen outrageous cost increases in Automobile Insurance, Homeowners insurance, Medical Insurance, pharmaceutical costs, etc etc etc.

earlier this week the price of meat (steak) at the local Walmart went up $10 dollars.

Some of those are big ticket items. Cost of tires is way up. Paint.

Thus makes a lot more sense. It's 7 months from February to September, just over half a year.

If the average household spends 35,000 per year, 700 over the course of half a year would be 4% annual inflation, which is in the right ball park.

If 700 is the increase *per month*, that's crazy double-digit hyperinflation. We've got inflation, but not like that.

Should probably find a different career

We're only talking about half a dozen stories, but every story had numerous, inexplicable mistakes.

I used to think journalists were either incompetent or lazy, but now that I have more experience as an engineer, I understand that the journalistic process is just not designed for correct, accurate reporting.

There's often very little time for careful research and there's usually no quality assurance process. An editor may review for style and such, but typically not for content. Certainly, if the reporter got someone's age wrong, the editor isn't going to be able to fix that unless it's someone famous. Even then, they're not likely to double-check more than one or two facts, if that.

And it's worse for technical reporting, at best, the journalist minored in economics so they can be conversant with the experts, but they're not remotely at the level to understand it well enough to translate it accurately for the masses.

So I don't blame journalists for inaccuracies like this, I just do my own QA.

What I do blame them for is obvious bias....

Anyone with any critical thinking skills could figure out that the average household wasn't paying an extra $700 a month when the chart it is based on is listed right there and states it was cumulative over 8 months.

Saying costs went up $88 per month won't generate nearly as many clicks though, will it?

And if they have just plain have a lousy process, some of the errors will be big.

If you want major journalistic fails, how about the idea that Hillary setting up a private server through which a handful of emails retroactively deemed to be classified and for which she was officially exonerated if any crime was ever a story worth covering more than a day or two, while the blatantly overt partisan abuse of power in investigating her over a non-crime was hardly worth a mention....

Also, the increase, even if annualized, assume inflation would have been zero.
It was 2.9% in Joe's last year.