[dragonwriter]

> The value of the US Dollar deceases exponentially in comparison to gold.

I don't give a fly fig about the value of gold on its own (and, consequently, as a benchmark for anything else.) I mean, except when I am considering gold as a potential investment vehicle.

Now, if you were to say that the value of the dollar loses value roughly exponentially, with a low and gradually changing exponent, compared to, say, the basket of services used to define the CPI or any other broad price measure, I’d say fine, that’s great. Low volatility is stable, and that's what I want in money. (Escalating value with higher volatility is acceptable in an investment vehicle, but currency should not be a primary investment vehicle; what is good in one is not good for the other, in either direction.)

[Capira]

The value of US Dollars deceases exponentially in comparison to any finite good, no?

Furthermore, most people's salaries don't increase as fast as the value of dollars deceases. That means for the average person it's likely that you are paid less every year.

[dragonwriter]

> Furthermore, most people's salaries don't increase as fast as the value of dollars deceases.

Yes, they do. Real (that is inflation-adjusted) median hourly wages have overall pretty much been even since the 1970s; dropping a little bit through the 1980s and early 1990s and rebounding slowly since.

Individually, people generally move up in relation to the median over their career, so with the median generally flat (and recently tending to be slightly positive), they tend to get higher real wages over time.

(Now, wages haven't kept up with productivity, and that's a real problem, but it's different than the one you are inventing.)