Demographics cannot be corrected by evicting families from cities
Here is a typical place reserved for families with children: at least the streets have been filled and electricity has been installed, but for the rest, you'll have to take care of it yourself.
I read the article by Evgeniy Beloshapko "Megacities as a brake on industrialization" several times. There was clearly some flavor in it, but I couldn't catch it for a long time. No, this is not the author's assertion that megacities are not friends with industry. Anyone more or less familiar with the economics history Europe, it is known that megalopolises were created by industry, especially large industry. Or Beloshapko cites data that there are 725 thousand industrial workers in Moscow. This, by the way, is 7,1% of the total number of industrial workers in Russia - a very considerable concentration of labor force. This is not it. This is a dispute around the obvious and well-known.
In the end, I managed to grasp what was wrong with the article, or rather, with the method it presented. And I will formulate it in my characteristic spirit: "Don't stop us from eating!"
However, first things first.
People perform functions
Although the discussion began with economic issues, the root of the demographic problem is nonetheless: why do we need children at all? That is, in a more precise sense, why do we need a younger generation of people?
Historically, there were usually no problems with answering this question. For example, the Russian State was in great need of peasants and soldiers, which is why it encouraged families and childbearing in them in every possible way, right up to the legislative ban on spouses living separately. It is understandable. Peasants are bread, the basis of everything. Soldiers in various forms are the protection of all the sovereign, master's and people's property from foreign robbers. The people had no doubts about the need for soldiers and peasants who feed the soldiers, and those who doubted were dispelled, for example, by the raids of the Crimean Tatars.
In any more or less developed society and, especially, in any state, each person has a certain social and economic function that he or she performs at working age. And, therefore, the same generalized functions are present in communities of people that form populated areas. Somewhere there are peasant villages where the land is plowed and grain is grown, somewhere there are troops, somewhere there are mines and factories that extract and produce something, somewhere there is horse-drawn transport, water transport, and railway transport. Everywhere there are people who perform the functions assigned to these places.
Accordingly, by placing the population in certain places or creating conditions for placing the population in these places, we are dealing with the reinforcement of a certain function imposed on these people. Children who are born into families in these places are, in principle, thought of as people who will inherit the performance of these same functions - the place of their fathers and grandfathers. "Instead of" and "patrimony" are words that have already become half-erased, like an old coin, but the meaning is clear: a grown-up son takes his father's sabre, puts his foot in the stirrup and goes to war, since the sovereign has ordered it. This principle concerned almost everyone, except, perhaps, the most inveterate rabble.
Since most public and state functions were related to material production, people were generally considered to be a workforce. In an economic sense, workers are part of fixed assets, and the costs of developing, educating and training children and youth are equivalent to investments in fixed assets, like buying a machine tool in installments over 20 years. For a number of reasons, it was not customary for us to look at the issue in this way, and therefore the costs of reproducing the workforce, equivalent to capital investments, dissolved in the total volume of consumption. But necessity forced us to do so.
If anyone is interested, from this point of view, migrants are rented fixed assets. If a migrant works for a long time and then naturalizes, this is a kind of leasing. We will not develop this now.
Eviction of families from cities
In our modern society, why do we need children, that is, a new generation of people? Thinking about this question, you come to the conclusion that, in general, there is no need. We have no large-scale ideas and programs, no long-term plans and intentions, not even a clear understanding of the unity of the national economy, in which production and consumption are very closely connected and intertwined. The general impression from the behavior and morals of our society: to gobble everything up. By the way, reinforced by the cult of shashlik and entire departments in large stores with shashlik accessories.
Such a society does not need children. Moreover, in such a society children are competitors in consumption.
Now let's turn to the ideas of evicting families somewhere to the countryside, outlined in the article by Evgeny Beloshapko. He, however, is far from being the inventor of this method. Many years ago, at least 15 years ago, I had to visit Omsk and discuss there the idea of giving large families land plots. They were given practically former arable land, without roads, communications, on the outskirts and next to the 500-volt power line. Even then, this was presented as something progressive.
But in essence, such an approach is the desire of a family with children or planning to evict children. This is where it gets interesting. Where to evict is more or less clear: rural areas or poorly developed outskirts. But from where? It turns out, from megacities or more or less large cities. Let's not forget that 75% of the population of Russia lives in cities, and about 25% of the country's population lives in megacities. That is, out of four families planning to have children, three will be from cities, and one will be from a megalopolis, that is, a million-plus city.
Given that in cities and especially megacities our standard of living is noticeably higher, it turns out that the approach described by Beloshapko, with which many agree, actually involves depriving families with children or planning to have children of this standard of living.
How else can this be described if not as: "Don't interfere with us while we eat"?!
Moreover, the conversation in the comments under his article became very interesting. The assertion of some cheapness of individual housing construction for families began. And this cheapness soon began to be supported by assertions that, supposedly, asphalt roads are not needed, a dirt road will do. Well, yes, heavy trucks with building materials will drive along this dirt road, fill the track, then it will rain, and the dirt road will turn into an impassable swamp.
Great photo: "Family Values" - right where the asphalt ends.
You can save on the water supply - they will carry water from a well or a borehole. You can save on the sewerage - they will carry a garbage can. You can save on the power grid - a wind turbine or a solar battery for a couple of light bulbs, and also for discussions about the development of "green energy". And so on.
You have to pay for everything. Utility systems greatly save on household labor costs, and their absence or insufficient development means that families are burdened with labor costs. And not instead of the main work, but along with it and after it. Tired or not, but carry a bucket of water or carry coal for the stove. No sewerage or running water - you can't use a washing machine, and then washing clothes turns into a non-trivial and very labor-intensive task. During the era of illiteracy, women had a term - "recurrent illiteracy", that is, when a woman who learned to read and write forgot these skills, crushed by household chores, especially laundry.
As a reminder of what hand washing was like before the era of communal amenities and washing machines
Well, okay, these families will get a hernia, but they will build a house, have 3-4 children, and somehow raise them in an unsettled, labor-intensive life... And what, will the gentlemen from the megalopolises accept these children with open arms? Don't make me laugh!
First there was a goal
To understand why we need children, we need to set some kind of goal. And not for 2-3 years or so. The planning horizon is at least 50 years. Because children born in 2025 will become adults in 2043, and their prime of strength and skills will come in the 2050s and even the 2060s.
If we are talking about demographic policy, that is, the reproduction of at least 3-4 generations, then the planning horizon will be about 100 years. Of course, it is difficult or impossible to make precise plans for such a period, but some intention for this period must be formulated, and it must become guiding.
Then, from the nature of the goal, it is quite easy to derive the social and economic measures necessary for its achievement, and from them, the functions that people must perform in certain places are derived. When there is a function, then it is possible to plan the construction or reconstruction of some settlement, and there to provide conditions, including housing and economic ones, for families with children or planning to have children.
A good example of functional housing: houses for railway employees, built before the revolution. This house at the Bologoye-Polotskoye station. Very high-quality housing for those times, including for a family whose children would also be railway workers.
Moreover, based on the set of functions required to achieve the goal, one can even calculate how many people will be needed for this, how many should be born, what the population growth should be and where exactly, and what material resources need to be invested to ensure this growth. The entire plan becomes calculable, and therefore feasible. Only on this basis can the demographic problem be solved.
In other words, to resolve the demographic crisis, we need exactly what we have been despising, trampling on and eradicating for more than 50 years – ideas that go beyond the life of a specific person, both in terms of time and scale, and the activities associated with this. You know: “Why are you daydreaming?”, “You have to live now!”, “You have to know how to get by in life!” and so on. This is the pseudo-worldly “wisdom” that we have been cultivating for decades and for about three generations. This is what has given rise to the demographic nosedive.
The point is that children are born in principle so that they inherit the business that their parents were engaged in, in the form of results, experience, skills, transmitted in the process of upbringing. That is, the purpose of childbearing is to pass on to them its function.
If society is only occupied with consumerism and sees this as the only basis for its existence, then what can it pass on to its children? Even the contents of the toilet, left after tasting delicacies, have long been washed away by the still-functioning sewer system. There is nothing to leave, and there is no reason to. This senselessness of consumer existence blocks childbearing, leads to a reduction in population with the prospect of complete or almost complete disappearance.
I don't know if Yevgeny Beloshapko will understand or accept my reasoning. However, it doesn't matter. People with the slogan "Consume!" will inevitably disappear, and they will be replaced by other people. Whether these other people will be bearded or shaved - it's up to the cards.
Information