Just curious, what do you then make of the following way of looking at pension systems?

Regardless of any financial considerations, the very young and the very old _always_ have to be taken care of by those of working age. There's no way around it, it's just physics/biology.

The intergenerational contract, as they call it.

It may well be that the financialisation of this inherent aspect of human societies has introduced pyramid dynamics. But that just exists in the higher layer. The base layer (physical/biological) only depends on demography and technology and will somehow continue to work, regardless of how price tags develop.

The question that intrigues me is: is the number of at least 2.1 children per woman (allegedly necessary to get a stable system) derived through financial considerations? If so, then it might be false, too high. Because deflationary technology should bring it lower, right?