That's not how productivity works. It's not a zero-sum game.
If all construction workers can build houses 5% more efficiently, that's not the same as nothing changing. Depending on supply and demand, it means 5% more houses are built, or houses are 5% cheaper, or maybe 5% bigger, or some combination. Whether or not the construction workers all get a raise or 5% get fired (or both) depends on that supply and demand, but historically they often get a piece of the growing economic pie.
Why would the company pay more when they can just not pay more? The only things I can see happening is they might lower prices as competition ramps up, or in general as there is more supply for the same cost.
If there's sufficient demand, that's just what happens.
To try and explain one path: Company A doesn't raise wages but makes 5% more money. Company B pivots from Industry B into construction (because suddenly construction is having 5% fatter margins), and hires workers at more competitive wages to poach them from Company A. Company A forces to raise wages.
If there's a demand ceiling on housing it's a different story though.
More like company B purchases a construction company and changes nothing but number go up for shareholders while wages stay stagnant for people producing actual value, as they have for decades.
Or, with current US policy, the top 10% will get 6% richer and you'll get 1% poorer. Sure, the pie can grow, but you won't (unless you are in the top 10%) get any of it.
If all construction workers can build houses 5% more efficiently, that's not the same as nothing changing. Depending on supply and demand, it means 5% more houses are built, or houses are 5% cheaper, or maybe 5% bigger, or some combination. Whether or not the construction workers all get a raise or 5% get fired (or both) depends on that supply and demand, but historically they often get a piece of the growing economic pie.