Here's how I like to argue it:
TVs might be cheaper "per unit of TV", but it's also difficult to just buy a basic TV. This is also offset intensely by "shrinkflation", which applies as much to durable goods (cheapening components) as it does to food. So you end up stuck with a bunch of "extra TV" that you don't need or want, effectively providing 0 utility, while the core product is lower-quality, even further lowering utility. And meanwhile economists deny that there is a problem because when you average it all out, you do technically pay less per abstracted unit of TV.
The reason this happens is because it ultimately leads to better profit margins for manufacturers. "We make 'em like they used to!" isn't enough of a differentiating factor for most consumers, who are deliberately kept under-educated and constantly bombarded with p̶r̶o̶p̶a̶g̶a̶n̶d̶a̶ advertising and marketing. If you can sell a TV for $100, do you want to spend $10 manufacturing the TV, or do you want to spend $5 manufacturing the TV and $0.25 adding some onboard computer and software to make it "smart" (marketing!) while skimming off a huge data/ad revenue stream as essentially free money on the side?
Moreover, luxury goods are somewhat irrelevant if your basic economic needs become less affordable. Maybe TVs are cheaper "per unit", but housing, healthcare, food, and energy are not. Those are literally all of the basic human needs except one (water), recognizable as such in even the most primitive of ancient societies. And water is problematic ("expensive" in terms of consumer welfare) in much of the USA for reasons other than pure financial cost.
Edit: None of the above should be construed as advocacy or apology for chart-crimes and misleading reports based thereupon.