That depends how you measure inflation. The government-published inflation rates use all kinds of creative accounting to make the number seem artificially low. It's in the government's interest to make it seem like that's the case. The reality is that housing prices (and rents) are increasing at a very high rate, and this is probably the biggest expense that we all have to pay. It's also a fundamental need.
If you were able track housing prices of equivalent homes and adjust for land scarcity from population- you'd have a much stronger metric. Without that context it's hardly relevant.
The difference is between those who held dollars and had a 56%+ loss of value over 20 years, vs those who held the same in assets which appreciated at the same rate as the general increase, and so did not lose value over time. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-or-century/
Granted, you're a lot worse off if you need to pay a hospital bill or go to college, but I don't think any serious person argues that the real structural problem there is lack of a Gold Standard...
Very few people could afford to do this, but in some markets for home ownership those would be the only type that could actually afford to own a home any more.
The gold standard has always been there for thousands of years and is likely to remain for many forseeable lifetimes to come.
The structural problems (from the citizens' point of view) are a result of how & when the US declined to participate any longer.
Not much different than anyone else over the centuries who could once afford a little gold but no longer any at all.
Remember since the US dollar was always tied to gold (after foolishly withdrawing from additionally constitutionally mandated silver in an earlier century), then when that was later tied to the confiscation of gold from the citizens, that allowed the dollar to be more powerful than gold as long as US taxpayer's assets were strong, making the USA actually relatively affluent as a nation. Therefore the gold price worldwide could be stabilized at $35 per ounce for decades, indefinitely if the taxpayer's assets would have been truly worth preserving by the regime. This was as long as the dollar remained tied to gold, even though citizens had not been allowed to hold gold of their own for most people's lifetime by then. With income taxes skyrocketing beyond the "temporary 1 percent tax on income" needed to pay for wars, tremendous wealth was transferred to the federal government over the decades and held as gold, until the fed had more wealth than the citizens which is the opposite of how the US actually grew as a free country, back when prosperous stuff could just pop up anywhere without federal interference.
Then one day Nixon comes along and offers the US gold to the rest of the world for $36 per ounce. Citizens still not allowed to participate, but the Saudis for example being some really big ones having a faster appreciating asset that sizable took great interest because they could actually afford to trade a portion of their faster-appreciating asset for one with less forseeable upside at the time.
Then Nixon "opens up China" so there can sooner be a new lower living standard to decline towards, gradually of course which is generous because the taxpayers can be put into free-fall at any time without a parachute since then.