Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

, it's not about salary increases but about purchasing power. I told my boss that his failure to adjust would mean that my work at the beginning of our employment relationship was worth almost a third less to him, but he wouldn't have found anyone for that salary. The salary adjustments are justified solely by the fact that my added value increased because I master the entire system and the collaborations in a way no newcomer could achieve.

Your posts are based on a logical error that is even standard teaching in business administration. Nevertheless, it is wrong.

It’s about individual productivity. It is a nonsensical concept because what I can do, I can only do because many others do what they do. If my child were not cared for in daycare, I could not be productive in other fields. The same goes for my mother’s elderly care. (In these examples, you can almost arbitrarily substitute jobs in the social sector).

In these jobs, “individual productivity” does not increase. And if it does, it often comes at the expense of humanity, which would not be socially acceptable.

In the end, everything is paid for by production. Always. Everywhere. We can afford a social sector because there is production. But we can only provide production at the current efficiency level because of the social jobs. So who exactly is contributing what here? The only logical assumption is therefore one of overall economic productivity. And if that grows, and furthermore, a 2% price increase is targeted anyway (inflation target), wages would also have to grow annually by 2% + x% productivity growth.

Even in jobs where the individual’s performance does not increase or can’t increase.

The fact that the concept of productivity doesn’t hold up can be seen in how economists justify salaries in the social sector:
Econ: “People have wages corresponding to their productivity.”
Question: “How high is their productivity (they don’t produce anything)?”
Econ: “Well, x€ high, you can tell by the wage…”

This circular reasoning, with which any STEM student would have failed in their first semester, is apparently sufficient in other fields… let’s leave it at that.

The fact is that many (including you?) classify people as high-, low-, and mid-performers due to this logical error and its propagation of errors. Completely bananas. A strike by some low performers and the whole chain collapses. The crisis showed that the low-performing kindergarten teacher caused far more difficulties than the high-performing divorce lawyer.

Salaries have nothing to do with productivity but with qualifications and risk-taking. Those who are not valued as much as they think they deserve can change jobs and watch their old boss in their rearview mirror. That is currently possible almost everywhere.

Should those who start the profession today receive the money from 30 years ago? And conversely, should someone who is simply satisfied with their job, feels no need for development, and has been doing the job for 30 years, still receive the money from 30 years ago?

Two things,
1. A newcomer today probably earns significantly less than you do now. And not because inflation has been compensated for you, but because you can do more than he can.
2. The other point is more philosophical/system-theoretical: I claim that such a person only works in the job because they need the money. If they really enjoyed their job, they would automatically develop. Here I am convinced that there are actually activities today that no one really likes to do. These should actually be automated. If that is not possible due to complexity, then they must be paid accordingly, and then there is sufficient potential for improvements. As a society, we must enable everyone to pursue an activity that fulfills them and allows them to earn their living.

that my added value increased because I master the whole system and the cooperations like no newcomer could achieve.

But that’s exactly what I mean. You have worked your way into the whole system and the cooperations, in other words, you improved yourself. For that, you deserved raises and even more than you described now. You haven’t been doing exactly the same thing in exactly the same way since your first year – or have you?

After all, what I want to get at is that seen as a cycle, a company can only maintain purchasing power if it operates correspondingly more successfully. So if everything becomes more expensive, initially it is the same for the company. If now all employees want (and should!) earn more, then the company must earn more too. Either because it increases its sales, which in turn can be through more customers or higher prices, or because it somehow manages to save costs. None of these things is automatic. If I succeed in implementing any of this, then my employees have done something right accordingly. And then I can compensate for inflation as well.

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?