I am not a Marxist Political Economist. I am a Marxist labour historian. When I relate to economic history, I can only really talk about the way in which capitalism actually functions (with reference to the truth systems of academia) from a "firm level" or "proletarian" perspective. This question would require a Marxist political economist to answer it in terms of academic truth systems.
Therefore, as I'm incapable of giving an academic answer, I shall give a political answer based on the truth systems used by proletarian revolutionaries.
There were three crises in US political economy that are relevant here:
1890s (Long duration)
The 1919 crisis was halted by smashing working class power, effectively a forced devaluation of the price of labour. The 1890s crisis was resolved by a long term devaluation of the price of labour through deflation. Gold standards benefitted large capitalists as it preserved the price capital through devaluation far more than it preserved the price of labour.
The reason why the 1930s political crisis could not be resolved through devaluation was that the Soviet Union existed, and the Europe wide revolutions of 1916–1921 were politically fresh and a real and immediate threat. The IWW was reviving in its new form as the CIO unions and the wildcatters in the 1930s. The CPUSA appeared to be a threat to capital. The option of forcing the proletariat to pay for the crisis was not viable, because of the very real demonstration that European proletariats would attempt to take capital during crises.
Further, the plan to grow consumer spending, grow capital growth and accumulation and tolerate inflation was an acceptable solution to the crisis of working class militancy.
Leaving the Gold Standard was merely a part of this further development of Fordism-Taylorism, and was essential for the development of the realisation of capital through a consumer good market (Department IIA). This has proved in the long run to be a far more successful method of accumulating capital than reliance upon realisation in Departments I or IIB (capital goods, luxury goods for capitalist consumption, respectively).
Was this "good" or "bad" for the average American?
In the 1890s the average american, the populist, the farmer labourer, the free silver advocate had been demanding an end to the deflationary nature of the gold standard. So they got what they wanted.
In 1919 the workers of Seattle and elsewhere in the US were demanding an end to the wage labour system and capitalism. Moving off the Gold Standard ensured that working class unrest could be bought off with inflation developed growth and consumption. So it was bad.
In 1933 the average American much more highly valued work, food, secure housing and freedom from want. By 1950 this had been delivered to male white industrial workers, and the myth that work, food, secure housing and freedom from want existed in the United States became a persistent myth until the 1960s ghetto riots. If compulsory gold standard deflation had existed in the 1930s, then it is unlikely that US capital would have bought off the US working class with a pittance out of the growth economy that persisted until the 1970s.