"Idiosyncratic" doesn't mean "we expect it to me less accessible", it means "we expect it to behave in its own special way so just taking a random one of them doesn't tell us anything about the average experience".
Given the number of goods and services there are in any given economy, you can probably find at least one good of each of the following categories:
A) that was very inaccessible in the 70s, and accessible now,
B) that was very accessible in the 70s and still very accessible now,
C) that was very inaccessible in the 70s and still very inaccessible, and
D) that was very accessible in the 70s and very inaccessible now (in addition to the one that you already picked)
None of those four tell us anything about whether "things people usually purchase" or "things the economy generally produces" have gotten more or less accessible, because different goods have gotten more or less expensive at different rates. You can easily point towards increasing inequality, which shows that the median American is getting a smaller share of income, and the divergence between CPI and GDPIPD, which serves to show that what people purchase on average (CPI) are getting more expensive faster than what the economy produces on average (IPD). (by about 30% on average according to FRED)
Insisting on intentionally using less useful evidence to support your claims is like making a strawman of your own argument, when clearly a stronger argument exists.
[FRED]: https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2023/03/the-differences-amon...