The construct of the corner pensioner and his controversial assumptions

The figure of the corner pensioner plays a central role in the political and social debate on old-age provision. It serves as a mathematical reference size to illustrate the amount of the statutory pension and create comparative values. This model person is based on the assumption of a consistently average employment course without major interruptions or fluctuations. inThis idealized idea is designed to construct a life in which contributions to the pension insurance are continuously paid and at the end a certain pension amount. This puts the pension calculation on a theoretical foundation that has hardly any points of contact with the actual reality of life of many people.

Reality of life and individual employment biographies

In reality, employment biographies rarely run as straight and constant as the corner pensioner’s model suggests. Phases of training, longer periods of illness, unemployment or the care of family members mean that many people can make no or only reduced pension contributions for years. These interruptions reduce the demands in old ageand mean that the actual pension is often far below the level of the model corner pensioner. This becomes particularly clear in professional groups in which part-time work, temporary employment or work breaks are common. Thus, the difference between model and reality is increasing.

The income variance and its consequences

Another weak point of the corner pensioner concept is the ignorance of the income variance that occurs over the course of a professional life. Hardly anyone earns the average income consistently, rather there are fluctuations due to promotions, salary cuts, industry changes or phases of lower earnings. These income differences are directly at the levelof the paid-up pension contributions and thus also influence the later pension amount. The corner pensioner’s model ignores these factors and thus conveys a distorted picture of the actual conditions under which old-age provision takes place in Germany.

Gross and net pension: Concealment of actual income

An often overlooked aspect is the difference between gross and net pensions. The corner pensioner is usually used as an example of the amount of the statutory pension, without taking into account the deductions such as health and long-term care insurance contributions or possible taxes. This gives the public perception that the pension shown in the model case is completelyis available. This makes many people unsettled with regard to their own old-age provision, as they have significantly less money available than assumed when they retired.

The omission of specific employment biographies

Women and the self-employed are hardly represented in the corner pensioner’s model. However, women in particular often have broken employment biographies, for example through parental leave or phases of caring for relatives. Even the self-employed often pay irregularly or not at all in the statutory pension insurance, which leads to lower pension entitlements. The model conceals these realities andthus contributes to the fact that the specific challenges of these groups are hardly discussed. The continuous reference to the corner pensioner thus promotes an unrealistic picture of old-age security and covers the risk of poverty in old age in particularly affected groups.

The utopian dimension of the model case

The pension calculated in the corner pensioner’s model is in most cases a utopian size. It is never achieved by the vast majority of people in practice. Nevertheless, it serves as a reference point in political discussion and influences the public perception of the performance of the pension system. Trust in statutory pensions is undermined byMany retired people find that their actual performances are far behind expectations. The discrepancy between ideal and reality causes insecurity and frustration.

Distortion of the debate and concealment of problems

The constant reference to the ideal image of the corner pensioner distracts from the actual challenges of the pension system. Massive capital losses of the contributors linked to the pay-as-you-go method remain in the background. The problem of poverty in old age also falls in the shade because the model suggests that the statutory pension is on average sufficient. the publicThis distorts debate about necessary reforms, the importance of private provision and the risks of poverty in old age. Instead of a realistic assessment of the situation, a theoretical construct dominates, which has little in common with the everyday life of most people.

Conclusion: The need for a realistic pension discourse

In order to have an appropriate and fair discussion about the future of old-age security, it is essential to take more account of the actual life courses and the variety of employment biographies. This is the only way to adequately address the challenges of demographic change, income differences and social security in old age. Holding on to the model ofEckrentners hardly helps, but only strengthens the gap between theory and practice. An honest debate presupposes that people’s reality is seen and recognized.