An ongoing pension system - a system that kills itself over time. Why? Because it reduces the birth rate, it reduces the profitability of investment. More precisely from investment to future generations: to children.
Baby like investment
Let's look at it quite coldly in the "language of science" (the economic one) - what exactly are children?
On average, we put around 18 million crowns into one child under the age of 3. What leads us to this? Why are we drowning so much money in our children?
The answer is simple - you want to survive and want to be well. In other words, he wants to preserve the family and at the same time he wants to secure himself for times of helplessness, for example for old age. A relatively large part of our history has been that our children will ensure that they take care of us in old age. And that is why we will take care of them with love in their childhood.
Children thus represented a form of capital, the return on which was in the horizon of up to decades. For a person, one's own family meant one's own social background. It was worthwhile to invest in the family in times of abundance, as some returns were expected in times of poverty investment. There was a chance that the individual would not starve.
Investment to children was specific. She went from parent to child, they both knew who gave what to whom. They were both aware of that. This specificity investment it is the source that children have begun to make a profit over time - that of securing the age of their parents. Specificity is extremely important as a result.
A child as a consumer good
But what has been going on for the last more than a hundred years?
The ongoing pension system seeks to take over the role of the family as a social background. It is a strong anonymisation of the whole social security system - the so much advocated "intergenerational solidarity" is actually just a situation where someone pays for someone, while no one really knows who specifically to whom.
It is similar to "socialist property", where a little exaggerated is "everything of everyone, so nothing is noble" - the pay-as-you-go pension system is so figuratively an effort to "collective investment “To ensure the age of the team. But no one can be sure whether everyone in "one generation" will have such a number of children (or at least some children) that "the whole generation" will earn a pension.
As a result, no one wants to have children, because a child no longer means collateral. "investment"In the amount of about 3 million crowns remains, but the revenue is lost in the" collective reinsurance ". The child thus ceases to be investment, becomes an ordinary consumer good. And that is relatively expensive goods.
The result is an overall lower birth rate. Socialization investment to children did this investment unprofitable. She stopped being like that investment, has become consumption. Expensive consumption that only the wealthier can afford - the result is the phenomenon "I will have children when I am financially secure". The child is a luxury.
However, the entire ongoing pension system is based on birth rates. The lower the birth rate, the less resources to pay pensions. If the ongoing system reduces the birth rate as a result, the resulting old-age insurance also decreases. However, this again reduces the profitability investment to children, ie children as a consumer good are again a bit more expensive. Birth rates are falling again.
It's like a snowball - a pay-as-you-go pension system reduces parents' income for their children, which means they will be born less children. However, this again reduces revenues from investment to children - but this leads to a further reduction in birth rates… and so on.
The ongoing pension system is thus inevitably heading from its inception to its demise. It destroys itself, it is a suicide system. It must collapse only from the principle of its own functioning.
So it's one big plane. And the destination? Bankruptcy. An exotic region full of new and unknown.