It's not potato pahtahto. Many US jobs are in competition with third world wages. If you raise wages 1000 dollars and increase cost of living 1000 it isn't a wash, since some companies might choose to outsource.
Americans shouldn't be competing with workers in third world countries. That behavior leads to a race to the bottom to see what country is willing to offer the cheapest labor, lowering the standard of living for everyone except the business owners.
It doesn't necessarily have to lower the standard of living for everyone. Goods and services can get cheaper alongside purchasing power leading to the standard of living being approximately the same. It's not a problem for labor to be cheaper if the cost of living also becomes cheaper. It only lowers the standard of living if the ratio of income to cost of living drops.
Those at the bottom today have a standard of living that is in many ways better than the standard of living of a billionaire a century ago. Why? Productivity gains.
There have absolutely been productivity gains, but those gains haven't been going to the workers. Return on labor has dropped, with the corporations seeing the gains. In the 70's in America, a laborer in a single worker family could afford a house, car, and retirement. Can a laborer in a third world country do the same?
The gains on increases in productivity have gone to workers, just not the workers being replaced. The gains are going to the workers implementing the automation that has increased productivity. The gains are also going to the consumers in the form of cheaper goods and services. Why would those not responsible for the productivity gains be entitled to those gains?
I'm sorry, but this is the kind of low-effort response that I come here to avoid. There's no substance, nothing thought-provoking, just conjecture designed to illicit an emotional response.
You are both saying that a job should provide more buying power.