Even such social institutions as the family and the collective arose during the social evolution of Homo sapiens and are primarily due to selfish reasons. A man and a woman, surrounded by their own kind, are commonplace, together it is easier to build a home, feed themselves, fight off predatory animals, and of course, give birth to and raise offspring. The more children and the more health and skills they have, the easier it will be for parents in the future, the more satisfying their old age will be. It has always been this way until such a thing as a pension has appeared.
The idea itself is a good one: a person works all his life, and then when he becomes old, depending on his former earnings and other merits, he will receive a guaranteed monetary allowance. You can and should not be distracted especially by numerous offspring, since for objective reasons, it is not conducive to the presence of all-consuming work, career growth and promotion (especially for women).
And then the children? And they have nothing to do with it - a person will eventually receive his money, regardless of how many children he has - zero or ten. It turns out that for a decent old age there is no longer any need to create large families and simply classical families also do not need, you can live alone, or with a face of your gender. The main thing is to work hard and hard, and then, decades later, let the young people born from other deductions from their contributions provide you with a decent old age. Only, as I have already said, a man is an unusually selfish being and without the need to overstretch his reproductive organs, besides receiving pleasure, he does not intend. I can imagine how many people will be outraged in the comments on my reasoning, but before writing something angry, please remember and compare how many children your grandfathers and great-grandfathers had and how many you have now (or in real plans), and at the same time compare standard of living, taking into account coffee grinders and general sewers, now and then.
Another proof of the selfishness of people, even in the most holy - the family, is the number of adopted children before the adoption of various incentive programs and after. Now, even by eye it can be seen that they are adopting a lot more often than 10 - 20 years ago, and all because it is profitable. I do not want to offend anyone and declare that all adoptive parents have mercantile interests in the first place, but the statistics are interesting science.
For the first time in stories the equation “a lot of intelligent, educated children = comfortable old age” is not always true, and only in our hypocritical time such hypocritical excuses appear, such as “I do not want to produce poverty”, “in the beginning it is necessary to achieve everything in life (yeah, by 40 years), and then start a child (one, for yourself!). I have good acquaintances who kind of wanted to start a second, but suddenly they took an expensive car on credit. All at once changed their minds. I ask: "And in old age, who will help." "So the pension will be," they answer. Those. they will ride a good car, and someone else will pay for their old age, who has never driven such a machine.
Damn, but for centuries people lived much worse, poorer, half-starved, they didn’t even have the Internet and mobile phones, not to mention the gas stove and washing machine, medical care, cars and other things, but somehow multiplied and multiplied and filled the earth. They probably just did not have pensions.
The first thesis of the article: the pension system is vicious and is aimed at reducing the birth rate by the mere fact of its existence. Second: it must be changed.
It is to change, not to cancel, and even more so, not to leave everything as it is. But what if the pension is not calculated on the basis of the former earnings of the pensioner, but depending on the pay of his children? Under the supervision of the state, each person gives 25% of his honestly earned money EXACTLY to his parents, or, in the event of their death, to other elderly persons on his own (remember the fairy tale where a woodcutter receives 4 coins a day, he eats one himself - money for living, one goes to pay off the debt — to the father for food, one gives to the debt — feeds the children, and one throws out — gives taxes). The more children the pensioner has and the more he has put “good, eternal” in them, the thicker the sausage is in the sandwich of their parent. And “Child-free”, when the sand is poured out, let the bottles be collected for the edification.
Honestly, from a moral point of view, I will not take any action deserving public censure, in the event of non-payment of contributions to the pension fund, to some unknown retiree, or to pay some uninteresting aunt from the fund, and if I am my father or I leave the mother without money, it will be a grave sin and public censure. Therefore, I think that the collection of contributions to the pension fund will increase dramatically. Of course, provided that at least 90% of the money listed by people reaches their parents.
I think that in case of adopting such a pension reform, the majority of emancipated women will change their guidelines and will be much more likely to be in maternity homes.
I can imagine what tantrums many will cause such a pension system, or at least its wide discussion in the media. Of course, to make a career all my life, having given birth “for myself” to one child, and then legally demanding a high pension - this is never selfishness. Tell me, do you know other ways to increase fertility?
When you want to achieve something from a person, you need a “stick” and “gingerbread”. Nothing fundamentally new has yet been invented. "Whip" and "gingerbread" can be different, sometimes, they are not immediately visible. So, such revolutionary measures are the “demographic whip”. There should be a “carrot”, i.e. real help to families with small children.
It should be easily accessible, and in some cases, things like diapers, baby food, strollers, children's medications, KINDER GARDENS AND SCHOOLS (and please do not irritate future parents. I know at least one unborn child because of only rumors on the introduction of paid secondary education. The couple decided not to have a third child because of uncertainty about the future, and the information about the additional fees finally determined their opinion). Mandatory free help for those who wish, but for medical reasons it is difficult to have a child, for many it is simply not affordable.
In general, these "gingerbread" measures are very, very expensive. But they can be seen as a long-term investment in the future. The more people, the more they build roads, factories, space ships, etc., the more they will produce goods and services, the more they will later acquire new things for themselves and as a result of all these actions, the cost of new people will easily be repulsed. if you provide the younger generation with quality education and medicine, then repeatedly. This will only make Russia richer, because the most important wealth of any country is not its enterprises and resources, but people.