That is saying a lot less than you might think. Again, consider that the banks employ actuaries - they understand inflation a lot better than the people borrowing the money. They didn't let themselves be the losers here.

Inflation doesn't change the actual power balance between different actors, it does make the situation more complex and harder to keep up with. It doesn't create real wealth and it is not responsible for a wealth transfer to wage earners. The idea just lacks a mechanism - for the wealth to come from employers or businesses they have to be ignorant, altruistic and disinterested in money. That seems unlikely. Ditto most other actors. Changing value of money favours people who can continuously adjust to it which isn't a typical wage earner.

If a generation gets something for free, they got it from somewhere else. Who lost out here? Why did it need to be inflation to make that happen? If they didn't get it for free, it is unclear why inflation would be necessary in the story instead of incidental.