Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

I have to briefly interrupt with retirement: The state has commissioned the German RV to pay social benefits that should actually be borne by the state itself. For this, the RV receives a federal subsidy from taxes.

The subsidy was always smaller than the payments. Clear ergo:

The statutory pension is not subsidized by the state with tax money, but rather tapped and partly redirected by the state.

Now about the generational contract: The idea is to partly redistribute the productivity of the national economy to the elderly of that very economy. As long as productivity grows faster than demographics hit, there is mathematically no problem. Mathematically! Because in reality, at the time of the system's installation, wage increases followed productivity increases. This made wages as the key to pensions sufficient. This was gradually shredded, and THAT IS WHY there are now problems with demographics.

Private, funded provision: I would like to point out that the pension of a given year is ALWAYS taken from the yield of that year, no matter whether it is a state or private pension. The capital is not kept in reserve until needed, but its yields pay pensions to those who receive them precisely then. It is only a redistribution system based on property rights instead of under state sovereignty. Is that exactly why it is better? Because you can sell your “pension rights”? Pension must always be taken from current yields, otherwise from what? This quite simple truth dissolves many patterns of thought when fully examined.

As an old building owner, I would already be glad to get craftsmen. I have been looking for craftsmen since September to carry out our renovation. Now it is January and I am not a bit further. Oh yes, the structural engineer is coming next week. That's it. So far, I have not managed to get a single cost estimate. One on-site appointment has taken place. But otherwise? It is hair-pulling. 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 basement, solar thermal to reduce gas consumption. But no way, no possibility. And it is on a scale that we cannot do ourselves. Everyone is renovating, insulating and installing heat pumps like crazy, there is simply no one to be found. After months of unsuccessful searching, I am about to just give up on the renovation of the ground floor and the solar thermal. It will just stay as it is. It’s not my fault either. I am already out of nerves before we could even start.

So I can't quite follow the first part. Do you mean that the state should actually pay the pension regardless of the contributions? Where is that stated?
Or are you talking about non-insurance benefits? It is disputed whether the subsidies cover these benefits or not, as this largely depends on the specific delineation of the benefit. But I think going deeper into that would be going too far here...

The second part describes the theoretical approach very well, but productivity increases are not only passed on, they must always be high enough to offset both inflation and demographic changes. And that could have been foreseen (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 correct for insurances.
The pay-as-you-go system works well when the recipients of benefits are statistically always fewer (or the benefits are always lower) than the contributors (contributions). So in risk insurances and possibly health insurances. But since we live longer and have fewer children, this does not add up programmatically for pensions.
But in my model it would only be partly an insurance ("the basic pension"). The rest would be an investment. This would then actually be saved as an individual capital stock and, depending on the choice, invested and then depleted along with the resulting return by the end of the working age. Here there would also be corresponding options: payout as a pension or as a lump sum. The advantages lie in independence not only from the demographic and economic development of one’s own economy but also a better diversification (if appropriate investment objects are chosen). From an individual point of view, there is also greater freedom and security in that the payout amount depends on individual personal decisions and not on state decision-making processes.

So now one might say, well, that is basically already the case. I just think that the share of statutory pension contributions in view of the expected pension benefits is far too high. It has to be this way now because we have more and more retirees and fewer contributors. But sooner or later something has to change. Or you simply levy more taxes right away and make it completely tax-funded and through basic security. That just wouldn’t be enforceable, which is why I realistically assume that people will probably just wait for the baby boomer generation.

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.

Logically inconsistent. If you actually have to go to the capital market for pensions, demand flows there instead of into the real economy. Then precisely the real capital stock is nibbled away by demand shortfalls, which is supposed to finance that capital-funded pension later. Logically that does not add up. But you probably won’t realize it until you’ve driven the cart into the wall once, as with so many things. Inflation, excluding external shocks (oil price crisis, corona), is essentially the derivative of the increase in unit labor costs. That is probably the closest correlation you can find in economics. Logically it would mean: wages must rise with productivity plus the intended inflation (2% in this case). In the case of external shocks, it means tightening one’s belt. Not enforceable, and thus the system slowly erodes. Doesn't help if you know what needs to be done but it is not enforceable.

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 answers, 2 on-site inspections in September / October, 1 company is now waiting for the energy consultant calculations to make an offer (but they at least make a good impression and have an excellent reputation).
Now I just have to see that the company still thinks it's in competition...

P.S.: Estimated scope 250-300k, so one can also make some money on it...

Because of wealth, no support is often a problem

Fortunately, I have a plumber in my circle of acquaintances for questions, otherwise you feel like at the dentist’s: "Are you already a customer? No, I just moved here. Then no, we are so busy. And how am I supposed to become a customer then? Get in touch when the time comes"
Experienced this 3 times...
The maintenance of the heat pump will probably now be done by the factory customer service after all, at least the manufacturer is doing it... I would have preferred someone local

And btw I am definitely the type of customer: I take my time as it suits the craftsman, don’t ask about the price and provide coffee and food

Only the guys who did the driveway were extremely hardworking and uncomplicated, I even apologized for not being able to offer anything because they were so fast