No, that is just patently false. Higher pay contributes to inflation in multiple ways. The first is that it directly causes the price of goods to increase a little bit because business owners have to raise prices to make up for the pay increase. Second, the additional money that people have laying around creates higher demand. It would be like going to an auction and just give everyone there an extra hundred bucks with the stipulation that they had to spend it at the auction. If you don't think that would cause them to bid up the price of each item up for auction you're delusional.
Now overall, population increases contribute far more to inflation than a pay increase would, and tying doctors and nurses salaries to inflation would be a small drop in the bucket in terms of increasing inflation, but it does impact it.
Your ad hominem aside, noting When PHDs and economists themselves are not in agreement on this point, you can't call anyone delusional.
Anyway....
Wages follow, they do not drive, inflation. Demand causes are not inflation. When demand is met prices go back down, and though there are fluctuations, the trend is pretty much flat. There is considerable debate on this in economic circles, including among economists themselves. But on inflation, I believe the Chicago and Austrian schools have it right, ( even though, insofar as policy, I'm a progressive/keynesian, etc ).
Market forces cause prices to rise and fall, but, using the ocean as a analogy, although the moon has a temporal influence on tide, it settles as the day turns, so to increase the world tide level, more water must be introduced to the ocean via polar ice melting.
Polar ice melting here is a metaphor for "fiat currency" being created and circulated faster than GDP can keep up with it. Too few goods chasing too much money, is the oft used descriptor, and i believe it is accurate.
Economist Milton Friedman famously said, "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon," meaning that money supply, not the rising cost of doing business, is the primary cause of inflation.
You'll find other economists disagreeing, but I believe on this point Friedman is correct, and the tide analogy works. Critics will sight historical examples where it didn't happen, but i note that the money supply is a complex thing, and one cannot view it from a microscope. Also, the effect isn't immediate, and can take months, etc. The gov fails to take in enough money to meet obligations, and results to the printing press ( or digital equivalent ) to create money out of thin air, called "fiat currency".
There are many historical examples of this, the hyperinflations of Germany, Africa, South America, etc., and smaller examples as the prices of things at the towns around the Gold Rush, where suddenly, there is an aggregate increase on gold and prices rose (in the surrounding towns) to about what they are today, back in the 19th century.
