“To begin with, at the end of the 1960s in the Soviet Union, and especially in Russia, there was a quiet revolution that was not paid attention to at that time. Its essence was expressed in the fact that the need to have only two children in a family was spread among the population without exception. People who wanted to have more, were in the minority. That is, there is a narrowed mode of reproduction of the population, which does not allow those born to compensate for the number of dying.
We have women retire in 55 years. On 5 earlier than in European countries. A law on this was passed in 1932 year, during industrialization. It would seem that there is a massive involvement of women in production, in the current situation, every worker is expensive, and the government actually reduces their number. But let's look at the main statistical indicator - the so-called total fertility rate. So, at the end of 1920-x - the beginning of 1930-s, he was about 4,1 - 4,2 child per woman. Many families had even more children. Returning home after a work shift, women were forced to take care of their education.
Taking into account the contribution of women to the reproduction of the population when they are employed in social production, the aforementioned law was adopted.
“But now the situation with the birth rate is completely different ...”
- In 1992, her coefficient dropped to 1,2 child per woman. In 2007 – 2008 increased to 1,4 baby. Now is approximately 1,6 baby. If this figure persists, the original population of the country will decrease by half every 50 years.
And if he gets closer to one, having made up, say, 1,1, what the prerequisites are for now (I’ll say this later), then the number of people living in the country will decrease already every 25 years. The main factor of depopulation, population decline is not mortality, but fertility. And it depends on the family. From how she performs her functions, what is her position in society.
“You will listen to representatives of the authorities, so it turns out that our demographic situation has improved in recent years thanks to their activities ...”
- Mrs. Golikova, who headed the Ministry of Health and Social Development in 2007 – 2012, said in the 2011 year that in the last 20 years, the country had the highest birth rate.
- But it’s known that 1990 entered into history very low birth rate and very low life expectancy.
- So she took them for a point of reference. In 1990, the total fertility rate was around 1,8. Then it began to decrease, the death rate increased. Yes, in recent years there has been a slight increase in the birth rate, but its level is incomparable with 1987 the year when the birth rate was significantly higher. But for Tatyana Golikova, there are only the last “post-reform” 20 years.
The ministers only pay attention to whether the coefficients are increasing or decreasing. What is behind these fluctuations is the number of men, women, how many marriages - as a rule, they do not delve into this. And the most important thing is that they do not note that the tendency towards depopulation has not gone anywhere, since the narrowed mode of reproduction of the population continues to operate. That is, it does not reproduce itself. But depopulation is the systematic decrease in the absolute population of any country or territory as a consequence of the narrowed reproduction of the population, when subsequent generations are numerically smaller than the previous ones.
- Maybe the ministers holding their posts for a few years do not have enough time to go deeper into the situation?
- Everything is simpler and more complicated.
Imagine: they appoint a person to a very responsible post of minister for several years. And if he is a “normal person” (from a philistine point of view), he will not publicly admit that he “killed” the business entrusted to him. All indicators for which it is monitored must either improve or at least remain the same. But do not deteriorate. And since we are in a chronic crisis in the field of healthcare, the social sphere, the economy, the ministers are grasping on the statistics that create the appearance of well-being. Golikova showed a vivid example of such an approach, propagating the improved statistics on demography. Look, she noted, our birth rates are growing, the number of abortions is decreasing. And we must understand this: once the minister is talking about this - this is the result of his effective management.
- But after all, the birth rate in Russia in recent years has slightly increased. What factors do you think contributed to this?
- This is a distant echo of the policy, which was carried out at the decline of the Soviet era. From 1981 to 1987 in the Soviet Union, the birth rate increased, the proportion of boys and girls who, now, in the first decade of the new century, entered the marriageable age increased. That is why there have been more men and women of this age in recent years. They got married and, although they acquired mostly one child, the odds crawled up a bit. But the merits of the current authorities in this.
- Did the introduction of maternity capital and the issuance of childbirth allowances affect the situation?
- Young people who should have given birth to an only child in three or four years, this policy pushed to make such a step earlier. Around 20-25 percent of young people had a need to have a second child, and they did the same, though not all. It is the reproductive groups at the age of 20-24 of the year, 25-29, that more fully realized their need for a second child - about seven to ten percent. Slightly increased the proportion of third births, which did not bring much effect. With regard to the births of 4-5 children, a significant increase was not observed here.
So, the previous increase in the number of men and women, and in recent times - the number of marriages - has affected the structure of fertility. Even women of 30-39 age (although a small percentage of them) gave birth to their second child. As a result, there was an accumulation of births.
But then hard times come. The aforementioned “reproductive cohorts” have already otzrozhali and more can not give birth. There will be a "demographic break". To stimulate childbirth, it will be necessary to increase the amount of maternity capital. For example, allocate not 400 thousand, and 800 thousand rubles. In addition, increase child support. We offer to pay it not up to one and a half years, but to 16, that is, until the child receives a passport, when he already becomes an adult.
Our country spends on mother's capital and child support ten times less money from the amount of national income than the EU countries. But if we want to become a normal demographic country, we will have to increase these costs 10 times. The government does not want to go to it.
Where it leads? To the fact that we will not receive a birth increase. The downward trend in fertility will increase. The increase in the “Brezhnev policy”, as a result of which the number of women and men increased, is coming to naught, and in the coming 10-15 years the reproductive contingent will be reduced by half. If now there are 14 million women in the country between the ages of 25 and 34 years, there will be about 7 million of them.
Nowadays, a generation comes to the age of marriage, which is much cooler about the birth and upbringing of their descendants than their “ancestors”. But, on the other hand, the economic turmoil of the “post-reform” times also affected the difficult demographic situation.
- But why your colleagues at the already mentioned meeting in the Central House of Scientists diligently avoided this topic? Is it really not obvious that many people of young and middle age who did not have such a life quenching as the older generation simply did not dare to give birth to their first child or second child in terms of “shock therapy” with its jumps in inflation and prices? Does the fact that some of our compatriots simply did not endure the breakdown of established social stereotypes and go into another world are taken into account? Adults began to die from long-forgotten childhood diseases!
- I and my colleagues repeatedly discussed these topics at a meeting of the demographic section in the Central House of Scientists ...
Definitely: in our country, the old health care system was broken, and it began to function worse. But this is just one of the factors. If before the Soviet people went to the south, rested, now many compatriots could no longer afford it: they had to “spin”, earn money to feed themselves and their families. Health recovery resources have stopped working. Mortality rates have risen sharply.
I never could have imagined that in Russia the average life expectancy of men would fall in the middle of 1990's to 58 years. If the Soviet Union on this indicator took a place in the world 133 (which, of course, did not color us), now Russia is already at the very bottom of the list. Now the fall seems to be suspended, but there was no improvement in life, but its stabilization at a certain level.
- In the course of the alleged "natural population decline", which lasted more than 20 years, Russia lost more than 5 million people. Most of these losses occurred in the “years of reform” ... But the guilty parties have not yet been named, and proper conclusions have not been drawn in order to avoid a similar catastrophe in the future.
- “Shock therapy” led to the impoverishment and demoralization of the people, in this I agree with you. Your humble servant, a professor at Moscow University, in the beginning of 1990-x had a salary of 10 dollars. In order to feed themselves, my wife and I ran shopping, bought millet and cereals. Four years I did not get out of the garden ...
At one of the seminars I asked Egor Gaidar: why, in carrying out reforms, you did not take into account in the government, how would they affect demography? He replied in the spirit that, he says, it was not up to this, the young reformers had other goals and objectives. But another liberal economist - Minister of Economics in 1997 – 1998 years, Jacob Urinson - was forced to admit in a televised speech that, thanks to the exploitation of the family and family labor, “reform” was actually carried out. If the family had not defended themselves with gardens and domestic work, had not switched to the natural way of farming, everything would have collapsed.
Yes, the so-called "reforms" sharply hit the state of health, psychological protection of the person. They exacerbated the demographic situation. But the depopulation would still come, although not on such a scale. We, representatives of the family crisis school and adherents of the fertility increase policy, warned about its inevitability back in 1970. In order to mitigate the ugly manifestations of the situation, it was necessary to step up the policy of helping the family, which was carried out in 1981 – 87. However, we stopped doing this in 1988 – 91. Demographic indicators have worsened, and here still "radical reforms" have fallen on our heads ...
Much wiser arrived in Sweden. There they were convinced that the policy of benefits and privileges in relation to the family, although it requires tension, nevertheless ensures stability in society, allows a person to feel confident. People do not want to live worse. Mortality and longevity clearly respond to changes in their mood. Nowhere in the developed world there is no such wildness as in our country: the second place in terms of the number of deaths was taken by those that resulted from homicides, suicides, injuries at work, transport ... Usually in other countries the proportion of these deaths is lower; in number, they rank fifth to sixth among others.
- What is the matter: as a result of the ugly “reforms”, many people were disorganized?
- In essence, there is currently no labor protection. What has current capitalism led to? Look at our daughters and sons who work on the 12-14 hours. If they get sick for a week, or, God forbid, two weeks, no one will tolerate it; and quickly fired. And in the Soviet era - suffered, paid ballots.
The current economy is an intense sweat system. Government, liberal economists and politicians deliberately protect this system. Ignoring the fact that even in their beloved United States there is no such concentration of property in the hands of a meager handful of rich people, like in our country. In Russia, 100 thousands of families own 95 percent of former state ownership! And you want this opposition of a handful of oligarchs and the majority of the poor population to have no demographic consequences? We have a contrasting social inequality in mortality.
Liberals say: "We live in a free country, we have a choice."
But demographically there is no choice. The people have only one way out: to reduce the number of births, marriages, increase divorces and familylessness.
- I personally somehow do not want to subscribe to the verdict of the Italian journalist Giulietto Chiesa: “Farewell, Russia!” ...
- And I personally think that people will come to power in 2025 – 2030 years in our country, understanding that the fate of the state depends on demography. If we do not reproduce ourselves and do not provide a demographic future, the Russian state will collapse. Understanding this, the new government will begin to mercilessly fight against small families. And nothing can stop the steps taken by him.
- Probably, the small families contributed not only to social causes, but also the ugly urbanization. To solve this problem, some scientists propose to move from the current block of urban dormitory type to local resettlement of the population.
- The birth rate in Russia can be increased if desired, given the enormous amount of land. Every family should have their own home. And the new government will distribute land on preferential terms, on which people will begin to build houses.
We need a one-story Russia. But at home they should be comfortably equipped so that families with four to five children can live in them. Children, using the Internet, will be engaged in many works together with their parents.
To bring this future closer, it is necessary to take the following steps. First of all, to raise the status of the housewife-mother. To affirm in the public mind the image of a true Russian family, in which the father’s sole income in the hired sector (I do not consider businessmen) makes it possible to contain three or four children. As soon as the man feels that he is firmly on his feet, the issue of alcohol abuse will disappear by itself. In addition, the stories about “Russian drunkenness,” in my opinion, are greatly exaggerated; these "thoughts" turned into a myth. I have been to many countries and made sure that our people do not drink more than others.
We must support the young family: for example, if she gives birth to the fourth or fifth child, then her housing loan to the state is automatically repaid.
We, a group of sociological demographers, have long been proposing to begin implementing a program of assistance for a young large family. In 2003, our project - to allocate thousands of dollars to each young family for the birth and upbringing of children - for 50 was approved by the government structures, it was signed by 8 ministers; but in connection with the personnel reshuffling that followed, this project was forgotten.
The program of assistance to a young large family needs public support: we need to lay the prerequisites for future sustainable demographic, socio-economic development. Unfortunately, our liberals refuse to take this approach. They expose themselves as humanists, advocating ostensibly for philanthropy, but in fact act as human frauds. Because the standard of a person who is socially irresponsible, living for one day, is taken as a model, only for the sake of pleasure and comfort.