While many economists question the very idea of saving a fiat currency directly, arguing it is effectively the same process as just printing currency at a later date, a number of studies have demonstrated that the pensions crisis is overstated or nonexistent and just part of a demographic shift. Critics of the crisis often argue that changes in the number of citizens of working ages and the transition from a 'short-lived, high birth-rate' society to 'long-lived, low birth-rate' society is part of the society reaching its population equilibrium. This transitional period will eventually return the dependency ratio, the level of new non-working child compared to non-working retirees, to "normal" in subsequent generations.
That would indicate that this isn't simply a crisis in the sense of something that needs to be addressed, and is overstated in its importance as there is no direct solution per se. However providing other forms of adequate social welfare, i.e. UBI or a similar scheme, would render the counter arguments and supporters of addressing the pensions crisis mute. If we bridge any gaps in pension payout due to demographic shifts, so that despite drops in birth rate everyone in the society is guaranteed a basic living income for that society, there is no need to worry about a pensions crisis even if it were true. Recognising caregivers as vital economic contributors and reimbursing them accordingly would also help bridge this gap and would recognise the important role that many pensioners still play in contributing to societies other dependents, children.