As written above, 2nd pillar contributions go up with age. 50+ obviously also has more experience and can demand a better wage. No bueno from the employer’s POV.
The current trend seems to be to just skip the middle man and completely offshore the job rather than hiring EU citizens to do the job in CH for a lower wage.
In places where work often involves sitting down on a comfortable chair and looking at a screen - which is what most people used to do in retirement - one must question whether the industrial-revolution-era retirement schemes still make sense at all.
I think a good approach is to look at obligatory contributions as taxes, in the sense that you pay it in good faith because you have to, but there is no guarantee that you will get anything out of them. That way, you still take responsibility to save and plan for your old age like people in countries without these kinds of schemes do.
That’s what I was doing, but then I got tempted by the tax breaks on pillar 2 and pillar 3a contributions.
Understand the sentiment but I do not think we can start thinking that pension fund money will never be paid to us. Why should it be and what will happen to the money that is already there? Your comment might be true for AHV because it is totally funded by Govt and Govt might end with no money. However with Debt to GDP of less than 50% in Switzerland, I wonder why should that happen anyways.
But for 2nd pillar & 3a -: I do not understand why we should assume that we would never get that money? Even Denmark who is going a bit too far still assumes 15 years of post retirement period. So if pension money can fund 15 last years of anyone`s life, I would not consider it as “lost money”. Once can argue, even 20 years back, the expected retirement period was not that long.
If we think logically, what is stopping us from getting that money?
in CH - It is not like countries where all the pension comes from state and is underfunded.
I don’t think anyone thinks this way for real, or would forget their pension contributions when they hit the pensionable age, it just keeps one sharper between the ears to not rely on it. In my opinion anyway.
That I think is a good idea. Financial independence is always a good thing
I also don’t agree. That is what first pillar is for. Decreasing conversion rates due to the longer life expectancy - sure, this is simple math. Suboptimal assets allocation in a pension fund at the level of individuals - I don’t like it, but I can swallow it and do what is best with 3a. An outright expropriation - no.
Imagine telling people “Congrats on turning 70! Your prize is…you get to retire with less than you saved for.” What a deal
I doubt someone who is 70 now expected to live until 80 when they were born 
So the prize is „yay you are alive and have more than a decade to live“
I often think people forget that government is not someone else. They only do what needs to be done and most of the times people vote for them to do that. So we shouldn’t feel bad about decisions that make sense
I understand your point. The reason why I personally group obligatory pensions in the same category as taxes is that they also have extraordinary political exposure. For example, we have seen the recent move towards removing tax advantages for lump-sum withdrawals vs. pensions. This isn’t surprising because the majority or residents prefer pensions to lump-sum withdrawals. That begs the question of whether lump-sum withdrawals may eventually be forbidden completely.
With other investments, there is obviously exposure to political risks, but those risks are much less pronounced. I certainly wouldn’t argue against using the pillar 2 or pillar 3a, but I personally think the same principles should be applied in financial planning as apply to taxes: Account for the extraordinary political risks and assume that whatever is preferred by the majority of voters will likely assert itself at some point in the future.