Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

So I can’t quite follow the first block. Do you mean that the state should actually pay the pension regardless of the contributions? Where does it say that? Or are you talking about benefits outside of insurance? It is controversial whether the subsidies cover these benefits or not, since that depends crucially on the precise delineation of the benefit. But I think going deeper into that is beyond the scope here... The second block describes the theoretical approach very well, but productivity gains must not only be passed on, they must also always be high enough to offset both inflation and demographic change. And that could (or should) have been foreseen with the introduction of the pay-as-you-go system that this would not always be the case. Now to the third: Theoretically, that is true for insurance. The pay-as-you-go system works well when the beneficiaries are statistically always fewer (or the benefits always lower) than the contributors (contributions). So in risk insurance and possibly health insurance. But since we live longer and have fewer children, this is programmatically not feasible for pensions. But in my model it would only partly be insurance (“the basic pension”). The rest would be an investment. This would actually be saved as an individual capital stock and invested according to choice, then consumed along with the resulting returns at the end of the working life. Herewith with corresponding choices: payment as a pension or as a lump sum. The advantages lie in the independence not only from the demographic and economic development of one’s own national economy but in better diversification (if one chooses appropriate investment objects). Viewed individually, there is also greater freedom and security because the payment amount depends on individual personal decisions and not on state decision-making processes. Now one might say, well that’s basically already the case. I am only of the opinion that the share of statutory pension contributions is much too high compared to the expected pension benefits. It has to be that way now because we have more and more retirees and fewer contributors. But sooner or later something has to change. Or you simply raise more taxes and make it completely tax-financed and via basic security. That would just not be enforceable, which is why my assessment is that realistically one will wait out the baby boomer generation.

As an old building owner, I would already be glad if I could get craftsmen. I have been looking for craftsmen since September to carry out our renovation. Now it's January and I haven't gotten any further. Oh yes, the structural engineer is coming next week. That's it. So far, I haven't managed to get a single cost estimate. One on-site appointment has taken place. But otherwise? It's enough to tear your hair out. And I thought, if I start in September, then I would surely get craftsmen for the summer of the following year... we would like to continue, to insulate the cellar, solar thermal to reduce gas consumption. But no, no chance. And it is to an extent that we cannot do ourselves. Everyone is renovating, insulating, and installing heat pumps like crazy, there simply is no one to be found. After months of unsuccessful searching, I am about to give up on the renovation of the ground floor and the solar thermal. It will just stay as it is. I can't help it either. I have no nerves left before we have even started.

Almost exactly my story... Sent about 15 inquiries in August, received 5 replies, 2 on-site inspections in September / October, 1 company is now waiting for the energy consultant calculations to make an offer (but at least they make a good impression and have a great reputation). Now I just have to see that the company still considers itself competitive... P.S.: Estimated volume 250-300k, so there's something to be earned from it...

If you actually have to rely on the capital market for retirement, demand flows there instead of into the real economy. Then, of all things, the real capital stock is gnawed away by demand shortfalls, which later is supposed to pay out that very funded pension. It doesn't logically add up. But you probably won't notice until you've driven the cart into the wall, like with so many things.

It’s no use knowing what should be done if it can’t be enforced.

In my opinion, it is only a time-delayed demand, because the accumulated pension capital is then supposed to be used up for one's own pension. The contributions of the generation that saves for themselves first do not disappear, but are supposed to be fully covered by the state, ergo no loss of demand.