Fun fact:
The US Gov't adjusts inflation numbers for such advances in technology. E.g. if you bought an IPad 1 for $500 last year and an IPad 2 for $550 this year it is not considered 10% inflation, but gets adjusted down based on advances in technology, and inflation for that item could be 0% even though it costs you 10% more to get a computer than the year before.
I understand that but an iPad1 != iPad2. An iPad2 probably has more than 10% more computing power than the iPad1. I was trying to point out that comparing inflation of devices that are not equal is not a good method of determining 'buy[ing] as much' that I was responding too. Taking average income, and comparing to inflation it looks like we are worse off than in 1970. But as for buying stuff we are able to buy much more. We have also changed the baseline as to what a standard of living is. But that isn't relevant to saying that a gold standard somehow maintains buying power more than a fiat currency.
My 2014 dollars are worth less than a 1970 dollar. But they buy so much more computing power (using any standard you want). I can buy more computing power with $5,000 than you could buy in 1970 with $5,000,000 dollars.
Point being I can buy 'more' than someone in 1970 could. Same with most everybody. Inflation has diluted the value of the dollar, yes. But the number of dollars has also gone up. And overall most people can buy 'more' now than they could then.
I am not saying that average pay (with inflation added in) should be going down. Just arguing that a gold dollar bought more than a fiat dollar.