The alternative view is that the real value of government issued currencies has fallen and Gold just kept going along with its 1.2% yearly inflation due to gold mining.

That the official currencies buy less and less (as I pointed) leans more towards the view that the value of government issued and controller currencies is being inflated away much faster than the value of an ancient currency which is not controlled by any government and only devalues by more of it being mined.

In other words, at medium and long time frames Gold is not an investment asset, it's a store of wealth outside the control of politicians.

The gold price was always artificially inflated. It's just currently higher than normal because a lot of people anticipate a catastrophic end to the AI bubble.

You don't understand what gold is being used for, it's insurance against government printing and is impossible to forge and hard to steal if your not stupid and actually pay for security, unlike things like bitcoin. Its used as the currency for century's for a reason and is often fallen back upon as a last resort for a reason. Silver isn't because it's not as fininite but is good as a more ubiquidous self backed currency for the same reason, just more for the common man.

The reason golds value is so high is because it is the price of combine debts that verious fiat deal could cover over all these years, that's why it's so high. When a debt can't be covered in cash, gold is often sold to make up the diffrence, over time that has caused its price to rise due to it being represented against these assets, it seems people can't get enough of the shiny metal.

But that wouldn't be a fair comparison. The prices of gold and dollars are stable. Bitcoin was invented in 2009 and is still in price discovery.

Actually the story of the 1960s family with 5 kids, a car and a good house on a worker’s salary is from Britain:

• A journalist in The Guardian discovered that his university educated daughter's salary was the same salary inflation adjusted as his factory worker father's salary, yet wasn't enough for even a small appartment in London whilst hist father's salary paid for the above mentioned house, car and family of 5, so he wrote an article about it.

Mind you, we see some version of this in plenty of other countries in at least the West - the story of how two university educated people need to work full time in a white collar job now to afford what a single blue collar salary paid in the 1970s is pretty common, though the difference from peak to through isn't as large as in countries which were wealthier back in the 60s.

Even in my own native Portugal which was under a Fascist dictatorship until 74 and thus had no prosperous 60s in any way form or shape (in fact by then the country was so poor it was the recipient of Food Aid from the rest of Europe) and only really rose to normal European standards after the 74 Revolution, you see that effect between the 80s and present day - it now takes the salary of 2 university white collar workers to buy what my father's single blue collar worker salary bought in the 80s.

People's purchasing power is way down even though according to official inflation figures it's supposedly not.

Note that official inflation figures are used in calculating GDP, were they deflate the Raw/Nominal GDP to make the Real GDP (the official one) and the more the inflation the less the Official GDP - in other words, the less the official inflation the more politicians can claim to have "grown the GDP" - ever since polticians started harping in the Press all about the GDP grew under their government there has been a strong political motivation to understate inflation (which is probably why the official inflation figures don't include house price inflation).

Yes, costs are higher now relative to income, but demands also are.

There is a dangerous underlying logic to this line of reasoning. Treating all technological innovation as an added cost to be borne by the end consumer leads to one inescapable dead end. Yes, sometimes there are actual costs. If so, fine. However, this blanket notion of hedonic price adjustment increases wealth inequality with no end. It isn't a sensible and we should be thankful our ancestors were not so foolish or we'd all be living in trees or caves right now.

In all fairness I only saw evidence of that for Great Britain because a journalist of The Guardian actually notice that his daughter's salary and his father's salary were the same when inflation adjusted yet bought way less now, so he wrote an article about it.

I've read things that led me to believe that there is a similar situation in the US but I don't know specifically how far the difference is in the US.

62% home ownership in 1960's for much smaller homes (on average 700 sqft) vs 65% now for an average of 2000sqft

62% -> 65% sounds reasonable.

700 sqft on average -> 2000 sqft on average is suspicious though. It's possible stats got skewed by the top 1%, who are today richer than ever before, and own ridiculous amount of property. Median sqft perhaps would be more representative