It's far easier to explain it this way. You buy your house in 1990 dollars. You sell your house in inflated 2030 dollars.
That goes for anything, even your car, it will depreciate far faster than the rate of inflation, but when you buy it in 2020 dollars and sell it for inflated 2025 dollars, some of the depreciation was countered by the inflation.
That's all it takes to shield money from inflation, find anything that doesn't depreciate and trade your money for that until you need it. For rich weirdos maybe that's buying artwork. For normal people with any money left over at the end of the week find any zero commission stock broker and buy broad market ETF. Or bonds, or real estate, or whatever floats your boat. You don't need to be a zillionaire to buy real estate, you can buy REIT ETFs, one share at a time.
If the burger I buy in 2030 is in 2030 dollars, but the guy cooking it is being paid less than 2030 dollars, and the restaurant doesn't have the money to pay better than that because everything else is in 2030 dollars, where did the difference go. Burger restaurant isn't doing any better in 2030 than now, probably worse. Where'd the money go? The government? They're in debt, they spend every dime they get almost entirely on us, which should be buying more burgers you'd think. That doesn't add up. So the GDP grew between now and 2030, where's the money from lost wage growth. It's going somewhere that isn't buying burgers so much. My point is, I think I understand you, but I don't blame inflation or the government. If inflation was zero, my theory is wages would have gone down regardless. They're facing downward pressure no matter what. Like the car example, when a car depreciates faster than inflation we just call it depreciation and ignore the inflation. But when wages depreciate slower than inflation, we blame inflation. I don't think that's accurate, but we both agree we're being squeezed by the same people.