"By my 30th birthday, I had already saved €100.000. Today, I own a fortune in the millions.“ writes Natascha Wegelin, founder of Madame Moneypenny, one of the most successful finfluencers [1]. Who doesn’t want it: to be secure in old age! In the current debates about pensions and retirement provision, a Solution discussed: Investments in the financial market. But is the financial market truly the answer to the future of retirement planning, or is it merely a further step toward social inequality and financial insecurity?
What is the problem?
Anyone with a low income and unable to make private provisions is certainly familiar with the question: Will I be affected by old-age poverty in old age? The risk of poverty for FLINTA* [2] is comparatively high. One in five women aged 65 and over is at risk of poverty. Structural factors exacerbate old-age poverty. FLINTA* employees receive lower wages. The gender pay gap is currently 18%This is due to the higher proportion of employment in low-wage sectors, such as the catering industry, as harvest workers, or as nursing assistants. Many FLINTA* work part-time, partly of their own choosing, partly because working conditions leave no other option, or because legal regulations, such as the splitting of income between spouses, encourage this separation. And FLINTA* take on the majority of unpaid care work (Gender Care Gap 44%), such as raising children, emotional support, and caring for relatives and friends during illness, transition, or old age. This exposes them to a permanent multiple burden. All of this leads to lower contributions to the pension fund during their working lives. For queer seniors, the risk of poverty in old age is even greater: On average, the poverty rate is six percent higher than for cis-hetero men. That means several hundred euros less in your bank account every month!
Demographic change is also putting pressure on the state pension system: More and more older people, with increasing life expectancy, are receiving pensions, and these must be financed by fewer and fewer young people. The statutory pension system in Germany operates on a pay-as-you-go basis. This means that the current 18,6% pension insurance contribution, which is deducted monthly from gross wages, ends up as a pension in the accounts of current pensioners. This means that the amount is not saved in an account to be withdrawn in old age, but is directly redistributed.
Currently discussed solutions
There is currently a common answer to the problem of old-age poverty among FLINTAs* and the funding gaps: investing in the stock market! The introduction of the stock pension is being discussed at the political level. Christian Lindner's (FDP) proposal, also known as Generational Capital, could no longer be passed due to the collapse of the traffic light coalition. However, the current election manifestos of the Greens, SPD, and CDU/CSU do not contain any new approaches, but rather the old promise of salvation: the stock market will solve the problem of pension financing! For the stock pension, a sum of 200 billion euros is to be raised over the next few years and invested in the stock market. From mid-2035, the proceeds will flow into the state pension insurance scheme so that the pension level remains stable and higher contribution payments are cushioned.
Since the statutory pension is not sufficient to ensure a secure living, the government recommends private pension provision. A growing trend is the emergence of so-called finfluencers, who share their financial knowledge and experiences on social media. Videos, podcasts, and online seminars specifically designed for women [3] impart basic knowledge and aim to encourage self-determined financial management. They also offer practical investment tips for ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds) to secure one's retirement. These programs are particularly suitable for women with low incomes. Slogans such as "Wealth through ETFs – more than just retirement planningDepending on the format, these offers are subject to costs.
What criticism is there of this?
There is a wide range of criticism of both approaches: The investment strategy of the equity pension is very vague in terms of sustainability, which allows climate-damaging actors to benefit. A CORRECTIV investigation shows that Blackrock, the world's largest asset manager, advised the Ministry of Finance on the equity pensionThe German pension insurance system also views this development critically. It points to the risk of a positive development on the financial marketA "stable" financial market with growth and a promising investment strategy are necessary for the project to be worthwhile. Where will intergenerational equity be if the planet continues to be destroyed and pensions remain low?
At the individual level, investing in stocks is useful for those with a bit of money stashed away. But even here, criticism arises: those who rely on the financial market take risks because they are betting on growth. Those who earn little are less able to make private provisions, contribute to additional insurance, or invest for the long term. Individual investment strategies make retirement planning an individual problem, thus promoting isolation.
So what to do?
These are none of the most hopeful prospects for the future, as they further drive social inequality, promote isolation, and the climate crisis will exacerbate these conditions even further. Sustainable ETFs with stricter investment criteria give personal investment strategies or even state equity pensions a greener veneer. The rules of the financial market remain the same, and economic growth remains a prerequisite. It's a dilemma, then! In addition to a pension that secures a living wage, the goal should also be to build long-term and committed networks. Ideally, these should span generations, so that a network of relationships exists in everyday life and across different life stages. This has the potential to encourage people beyond the nuclear family to organize themselves, redistribute care work, and be there for one another. Because no equity fund can compete with the value of being embedded in a caring community or a care network [4].
And why not continue to rely on the existing statutory pension system and expand it? It has existed for over 60 years, has withstood several financial crises, and contributed to a stable redistribution of pensions between generations. A politically forward-looking debate would be about how, for example, civil servants could be integrated into the statutory pension insurance system. Comprehensive integration of all working people would lead to better financing and greater equity between generations and professional groups. Austria demonstrated this 20 years agoAnd taking it a step further: What if the pension points system were changed to include unpaid care work alongside earned income? This would increase the value of unpaid care work, and all those who perform the majority of it would benefit.
Social change requires a variety of actors and strategies, as well as pressure from the streets. Struggles for the appreciation of paid care work must be given greater focus. A steady increase in the minimum wage is necessary so that wages rise and more money flows into the state pension fund, which increases pensions. It is worthwhile to advocate for a collective reduction in working hours with full compensation (more in our dossier). And stronger struggles are needed for the appreciation and recognition of unpaid care work, so that, for example, caring for friends is also reflected in the pension points system. These measures would be a start to counteracting the structural causes of old-age poverty. After all, it's fair if those who keep the business running can live well in old age.
[1] Finfluencers are people who share content about finance, investment strategies or pension insurance on social media.
[2] FLINTA* stands for women, lesbians, intersex, non-binary, trans, and agender people. In our analysis, we use the term FLINTA* because there are more than two genders and people other than cis/endo women are also affected by patriarchal oppression. Since we rely on statistics that only capture gender in binary terms and do not distinguish between trans* and cis or intersex and endo, we write about the categories these studies use (e.g., women).
[3] Finfluencers' websites address only women as a target group, which is why we reflect this in this paragraph. In our analysis in the concept book, we use the term FLINTA* because there are more than two genders and more than cis-endo women are affected by patriarchal oppression.
[4] Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha (2018) Care: Work: Dreaming Disability Justice
Photo: Charlotte Hitzfelder, CC BY-SA 2.0
© 2025. This work is openly licensed via CC BY-NC 4.0 DEED
