Yes, a currency’s relationship with labor fluctuates due to how a market prices labor, but this isnt the fault of currency. It’s a fault with labor markets. In a labor market buyers almost always have an advantage over sellers and as such can devalue labor seemingly at will. This does not in turn change the value of the currency though.

It absolutely changes the value of the currency to the laborer. Labor "buyers' have an advantage over laborers only because their assets are valued higher than the labor needed to produce them. This valuation is unbalanced and inaccurate, and the inaccuracy is enabled by the concept of currency and exploited by the asset holders. A laborer produces far more value than a landlord, but the system is designed to keep them from accumulating enough assets to ever be a landlord.

Secondly, you're incorrect regarding the Federal Reserve - it's a hybrid public/private system:

The Federal Reserve System is composed of several layers. It is governed by the presidentially appointed board of governors or Federal Reserve Board (FRB). Twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, located in cities throughout the nation, regulate and oversee privately owned commercial banks. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) sets monetary policy by adjusting the target for the federal funds rate, which generally influences market interest rates and, in turn, the American economy via the monetary transmission mechanism.

The Federal Reserve has been criticized for its approach to managing inflation, perceived lack of transparency, and its role in economic downturns. The shift from the gold standard to fiat currency has led to long-term inflation and financial instability, with some calling for the Fed's abolition or greater accountability through audits

The Fed has been captured by private interests since its inception. They gained legitimacy for the dollar by attaching it to real wealth (gold), and then once they had everyone believing in the strength of the dollar, they rug pulled the wealth that was supporting it. This allowed the asset owning class now to essentially pay their laborers with paper instead of gold. And they can make all the paper they want.

This has worked for about as long as people had faith in America, because the dollar was still considered an "investment in America" and because America had a really good PR team. But once the dollar lost its connection to real wealth, it became a tool of disenfranchisement.

Oh, and ever wonder how the Federal Reserve got started? Spoiler alert, it wasn't in a congressional committee:

In 1910, Aldrich and executives representing the banks of J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller, and Kuhn, Loeb & Co., secluded themselves for ten days at Jekyll Island, Georgia.[9] The executives included Frank A. Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank of New York, associated with the Rockefellers; Henry Davison, senior partner of J.P. Morgan Company; Charles D. Norton, president of the First National Bank of New York; and Col. Edward M. House, who would later become President Woodrow Wilson's closest adviser and founder of the Council on Foreign Relations.[10] There, Paul Warburg of Kuhn, Loeb, & Co. directed the proceedings and wrote the primary features of what would be called the Aldrich Plan. Warburg would later write that "The matter of a uniform discount rate (interest rate) was discussed and settled at Jekyll Island." Vanderlip wrote in his 1935 autobiography From Farmboy to Financier:[11]

Despite my views about the value to society of greater publicity for the affairs of corporations, there was an occasion, near the close of 1910, when I was as secretive, indeed, as furtive as any conspirator. None of us who participated felt that we were conspirators; on the contrary we felt we were engaged in a patriotic work. We were trying to plan a mechanism that would correct the weaknesses of our banking system as revealed under the strains and pressures of the panic of 1907. I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyl Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System. ... Discovery, we knew, simply must not happen, or else all our time and effort would be wasted. If it were to be exposed publicly that our particular group had gotten together and written a banking bill, that bill would have no chance whatever of passage by Congress. Yet, who was there in Congress who might have drafted a sound piece of legislation dealing with the purely banking problem with which we were concerned?

Despite meeting in secret, from both the public and the government, the importance of the Jekyll Island meeting was revealed three years after the Federal Reserve Act was passed, when journalist Bertie Charles Forbes in 1916 wrote an article about the "hunting trip"

That’s not really how the gold standard worked. The value of gold is also imaginary, so it’s not immune from inflationary forces. If the government wanted to “print more money” they would just adjust the value of the gold.

I was mainly using that example to show how a physical attachment to currency makes hoarding impossible at the scale of trillions.

But you're incorrect in your last sentence, because the value of gold is not determined by a single government. It's value is arbitrary and certainly subject to inflation, but only when supply outpaces demand, which happens rarely (Spanish conquest of the Americas being one notable exception) but not to the same extent a non-physical fiat currency can be distorted.

And gold is not imaginary. It is a physical object. It's not currency (although it can be used as such), it's wealth. And it's a more reliable store of wealth than money in a bank account, although considerably less liquid. If all money disappeared tomorrow, gold would still hold value (probably more)... but only to those who have need of gold as a store of wealth.

But here's the thing, if someone manages to get all the gold in the world, the rest of us still get to eat. If someone gets all the money and buys all the means of production - we only get to eat if we give them our labor.

Now, you actually illustrated my point that money is imaginary here:

The reason we moved away from this is because the value of gold in foreign markets was difficult to standardize to the value of the USD. Meaning that while we may want to hold the value of gold to a certain USD mark to help control domestic inflation, the value of the gold was lower than it could fetch in foreign markets.

In other words, when we attached the dollar (imaginary value) to gold (real value) the value of gold declined because the inflationary pressure inherent in the (imaginary) dollar artificially decreased its value. Thus the distortion of value we see inherent in money. And when the dollar was fully decoupled from gold in 1971, well, remember the Carter years and the oil crisis? In fact, look at our economic stability and inequality pre and post 1971 - economics effectively became a constant boom/bust cycle for most of our lifetimes, and now nearly 60% of the county is underwater.

Because once upon a time the dollar was a symbol of wealth because it was worth gold, and its not anymore. It's just an point in a rigged system now.

EDIT: words