Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

Yes, that is the real problem. In our society, social professions are not sufficiently appreciated. And for social professions, I would also immediately agree that they must have a decent income. However, I would not organize social professions privately in companies.
Furthermore: Actually, I never talked about productivity. I talked about additional performance. By that, I explicitly mean "soft" topics like, for example, creating a better working atmosphere.
And I was talking about a private company.

Of course, this is constructed, I already said that I am not familiar with this area. But I did not bring the cleaning lady in.

I would claim that this is not true. But I cannot rule out that it is actually like that in some area. However, if that were the case, then it would also be a job that should be automated. (see below)

That is true. Personally, I am not talking about increasing efficiency, but about improving performance (that does not necessarily mean that efficiency increases).
I also believe that such jobs should be automated and that we as a society must ensure that people still have their livelihood. But that is another topic.

I did not say that.

As a conclusion, I take for myself now that there can be job descriptions in which salary increases should come without personal change. From my personal experience, I do not know that and still have many question marks in my head, but if it belongs to the reality of life, so be it.
As an employee, I would not tolerate it in such a job.
As a manager, I see it as my task to ensure that none of my employees sees their position and development potential that way. Then I would be doing something wrong.

If I were your boss, I would ask you whether your performance among the 5,200 posts in this forum over the past two years has suffered or whether there is still potential for development.

I would argue that this is not true. But I cannot rule out that it might actually be the case in some area. However, if it were so, then it would also be a job that should be automated. (see below)

Just because something is easy for unskilled workers to perform does not mean it is easy to automate. There is a reason why Amazon employs an army of people who take items off shelves and put them in boxes. They automate what is possible, but humans are still superior in this regard. Or does anyone still remember the "self-cleaning" toilet seats at rest stops? Which in practice only ended up smearing everything even more?

In principle, general salary adjustments (=> everyone gets a little more) and performance- and development-related adjustments (=> you get more for your special contribution/your own development) are not mutually exclusive. In tariff-bound companies, there are also various possibilities for how something like this is usually represented. Sometimes there are tariff bands (-> within a classification there is still room for negotiation) or experience levels (-> the assumption that your accumulated experience + loyalty to the company is also worth something) or of course classic higher classification/change to a job with a higher classification. In addition, general adjustments for everyone are still occasionally made. This is then what on the one hand ensures that with new hires you keep up with the general wage level, but also ensures that someone who is doing their job but develops rather slowly does not leave because their salary is eaten up by inflation year after year and they would simply earn much more after a company change after a few years.

Whether there should be a mandatory inflation adjustment, I don’t find that so clear either. But if the company is doing well, I do think it is appropriate that at least part of that is passed on to everyone. Ultimately, every small cog is part of the company’s success. You could also say, if you see the company’s success being passed on to you as well, that might motivate you to contribute to it. I still find it fair that someone who contributes more also earns more, but as I said, one does not necessarily exclude the other.

Whether there should be a mandatory inflation adjustment is also not so clear to me. But if the company is doing well, I do find it appropriate that at least a part of that is passed on to everyone. After all, every small cog is also part of the company's success. You could also say, if you see that the company's success is passed on to you, that might motivate you to contribute. I still find it fair that someone who contributes more also earns more, but as I said, one does not necessarily exclude the other.

I completely agree with that!

Just because something can be easily done by unskilled workers does not mean it is easy to automate. There is a reason why Amazon employs an army of people who take items off the shelf and put them into a box. They automate what they can, but humans are still superior in this regard.

Humans are not superior here; they are simply cheaper than automated logistics solutions at this scale. However, this could change due to further increases in the minimum wage in the coming years.