Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

At this point, humans are not superior; they are simply cheaper than automated logistics solutions at this scale. However, this could certainly change with further increases in the minimum wage in the coming years.

Yes and no. Picking things from a shelf is much harder than it sounds. A robot is good at grasping standardized items that are more or less correctly placed. Like containers, boxes, pallets. But Amazon has many items loose on the shelf, which makes it difficult for a robot. Recognizing and feeling is a technically challenging problem, especially when items are still wrapped in foil or bags. That’s why almost everything else around it is automated there, but that step is still missing. It will certainly come at some point, but so far the problem hasn’t been solved in a way that is qualitatively acceptable. Financially, the situation is relatively clear: a robot neither takes vacation nor has an end of workday and doesn’t get tired, so it effectively works for four people. And the robot also doesn’t pay social security, needs no recruiting (which is a quite relevant expense given turnover), etc., thus significantly increasing its value. You then have to deduct technical support costs, but humans have to be much better for it to be worthwhile even with minimum wage workers, and they are. From a business perspective, the matter is clear anyway: personnel are expenses and the money is gone, robots are investments and retain their value minus depreciation within the company.

1. A newcomer today probably earns considerably less than you do today. And not because your inflation was compensated, but because you can do more than he can.

Yes, that may be true, but a newcomer wouldn’t even consider starting the job if they were paid what I received when I started working over 35 years ago. And as I wrote further above, we define annual general percentage salary increases, the amount of which depends on current business success. This can sometimes be 0.5% or 1%, and the next year maybe 3%. For those who have developed, expanded their area of responsibility, and the like, this percentage rate can be increased and supplemented by bonus payments etc.

I claim that such a person only works in the job because they need the money. If they really liked their job, they would automatically develop themselves. Here I am convinced that today there are indeed tasks that no one really likes to do. These must 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 that they can use to finance their livelihood.

Not everyone is keen on constant personal development. That is why I explicitly chose a few occupational profiles that lie outside the usual office job profile. And then there are occupational profiles where I actually can’t imagine automation taking over, such as the ones you mentioned: educators or teachers or restaurant professionals. And other occupations where I can’t technically imagine automation properly either, for example, a truly good cleaning lady or hairdressers or physiotherapists or pedicurists, etc.

general percentage salary increases defined, the amount of which depends on the current business success. This can sometimes be 0.5% or 1% and next year maybe 3%. For those who have developed, expanded their area of responsibility, and the like, this percentage rate can be increased and supplemented by bonus payments, etc.

I can well imagine that. But not a blanket inflation adjustment regardless of whether the company is being eaten up by costs or not. I simply don’t believe that someone really enjoys working in a monotonous, unchanging job in which they have no opportunity for creativity. Then the person would much rather do something entirely different, just can’t make a living from it, and so works in a job where they are mostly left alone. Unfortunately, this is common in our society and probably not currently avoidable. But I would actually be in favor of someone who, for example, really enjoys dealing with plants, growing and caring for them, searching for rarities, and propagating them, to do that gladly and therefore not have to live at the subsistence level or work a job that actually gives them nothing. I also do not see all work with people as automatable. The human component there is far too important. Regarding teachers in their role as pure knowledge transmitters, I am not 100% sure whether that would sometimes be better done by computers, but school in general and pedagogy, conveying soft skills, that must be done by people and then of course compensated accordingly. And there I also naturally see an automatic adjustment to the cost of living.

It will not be long before machines are more intelligent than humans. This point will be reached much, much faster than many believe ;)

This is exactly my topic right now. Today I received a letter from my management asking if I might want to take it on. I am a childcare worker for a church employer. The salary agreement is actually binding until the end of the year, but given the current situation, improvements have been requested. The Diakonie agreed to 1.6% as of April 1st. However, my employer says they cannot refinance that. Now they want to push further, and the union wants to know if we prefer the inflation bonus or the percentage, linear increase. I would spontaneously lean towards the one-time payment, but the percentage increase probably brings more, right?

It won't be too long before machines are smarter than humans. This point will be reached much, much faster than many believe ;)

So AI is kind of a personal hobbyhorse of mine, and I read quite a bit about it. I'm currently wondering what timeframe you imagine as "faster than many believe ;)". Also, I would find it interesting to define "intelligence" (there are various types of intelligence, after all). At least in the literature I read, true AI is not to be seen in the foreseeable future, because then good night humanity :-(