Military Review

Anatoly Antonov: “The fate of the state depends on demography”

Anatoly Antonov: “The fate of the state depends on demography”- Anatoly Ivanovich, at a recent meeting of the demographic section at the Central House of Scientists, forecasts were made that could dishearten. It turns out that the difference between the best and worst variants of the development of the demographic situation in our country can be about 15 million people ... How did we come to such a life?

“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.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Reserve officer
    Reserve officer 30 May 2014 14: 39
    In the USSR, the main share of the birth rate of the population was attributed to the Asian republics. They left it there, only mortality is much higher now.
    And the main failure is, of course, in the 90 years. This is not counting the failures in fertility over time - the children of war - their children - their grandchildren.
    The problem, of course, is colossal, what can I say. And unfortunately, it is solved very slowly.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. Evgeniy1
        Evgeniy1 30 May 2014 15: 52
        The MAIN question is not QUANTITIES, but QUALITIES - who gives birth and where (Uzbeks, Tajiks ...)!
      2. Evgeniy1
        Evgeniy1 30 May 2014 15: 52
        The MAIN question is not QUANTITIES, but QUALITIES - who gives birth and where (Uzbeks, Tajiks ...)!
      3. kolyhalovs
        kolyhalovs 30 May 2014 15: 55
        In fact, for a year or two, there is an excess of births over the dead. But this is in absolute terms and the merit of a large number of giving birth "eighties" and maternity capital. When the base of those giving birth falls (the generation of the nineties will finally get married, and the eighties calm down) the picture will change.
        1. sub307
          sub307 30 May 2014 16: 16
          But what we have now, literally:

          Current population
          65 615 409
          Current male population (46.3%)
          76 253 540
          Current female population (53.7%)
          647 233
          Born this year
          2 927
          Born today
          939 513
          Died this year
          4 249
          Died today
          156 390
          Net migration this year
          Net migration today
          -135 890

          Population growth this year
          Population growth today

          Every 19.98 sec. one baby is born. In an hour, the population of Russia is replenished by 180.2 children (child).
          Every 13.76 seconds one person is dying. Every hour, Russia loses 261.5 people.

          Russian economy

          $ 1 097 989 887 483
          GDP (Gross Domestic Product) this year
          (at purchasing power parity)
          $ 7 739
          This year's GDP per capita (annual $ 18 873)
          $ 4 965 892 963
          GDP for today
          $ 35
          GDP for the current day per capita
          $ 372 887 420 173
          Public debt counter
          $ 2 628
          Government debt per capita
          $ 12 796 299 043
          Public debt this year
          $ 57 873 986
          Government debt today
      4. kolyhalovs
        kolyhalovs 30 May 2014 15: 59
        Do not hesitate to speak? In what other country do 10 thousand green people pay for the birth of a child? You tell me.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. armageddon
      armageddon 30 May 2014 16: 17
      Hmm ... The question is INCREASING THE LIFE OF LIFE !!! This is living in Moscow ... !!! And in Russia 15 thousand rubles is the average salary ...
    4. The comment was deleted.
  2. Giant thought
    Giant thought 30 May 2014 14: 41
    The more babies today get confused under the feet of adults, the more powerful the state will be in a couple of decades.
  3. DanSabaka
    DanSabaka 30 May 2014 14: 43
    Of course, you need to support large families, but you need to make sure that people WANT to create large families .... and for this you need to change, destroy the "philosophy of consumption" that is flourishing all over the world ....
    1. soyuz-nik
      soyuz-nik 30 May 2014 16: 07
      IMHO, to be realistic, few people will abandon the gains of civilization ... And the problem, IMHO, is much more diverse (such as: psychology, sociology, religion, economics, etc.)

      As the saying goes, if Americans parked their refrigerators on their front lawn, new models of refrigerators would be released every week. I mean, people tend to compete "who is cooler" ... So they stand in lines at night for new iPhones, so as not to be, but to FEEL "cooler", etc.
      Or here's some crap

      Unfortunately, in the USSR, in the struggle between supporters of all sorts of "-isms", families lost their traditions: either they fought against tsarism, then with the priests, then with the commies, then the devil knows with whom and what. As a result, among other things, we have the degradation of the cult of the family and the cult of the head of the family.

      What are the slogans of the feminists? It seems: "All people are sisters!" and "Every woman has a housewife!"

      Earlier, the security in old age depended on the number of offspring. Now the state is engaged in this provision of the elderly, and then through the stump - the deck.

      IMHO, it is necessary to introduce a tax on childlessness ... And this is an insignificant measure ...

      A man was created for war, and a woman was created for the repose of a warrior, everything else is stupid ... (F. Nietzsche)
      1. DanSabaka
        DanSabaka 30 May 2014 16: 37
        or maybe just, less advertising for "iPhones" and clothes, less gloss and glamorous pathos and people themselves will want coziness instead of comfort and kids instead of "yoriks" ....
        1. soyuz-nik
          soyuz-nik 30 May 2014 16: 42
          It is unlikely ... there was no advertising in the USSR, the glamor was wretched, but people chased after chewing gum and other consumer garbage.
          Do you seriously believe that if you issue a decree to reduce the volume of advertising, then people will immediately run to make children (in the sense of not just managing the physiological need, namely, without any protective measures)?
          1. DanSabaka
            DanSabaka 31 May 2014 12: 25
            no need to exaggerate .... and in the Soviet Socialist Republic, not everyone was chasing the chewing gum .... and large families were not at all ....
  4. Ascetic
    Ascetic 30 May 2014 14: 46
    Now on the street you can often find pregnant and young mothers with strollers. I recall the 90s when it was rare. Now the baby boom is about the same as in the mid-80s of the last century, at least at first glance a comparable situation. Perhaps this is due to the fact that these very children born in the 80s entered the reproductive age. But one must think when the children of the mid-90s come up there will again be a demographic hole. The main thing is not the number of births, but the number of children in the family - at least 2 or better. Then there is a chance that the natural population decline will decrease. Therefore, all the efforts of the state should be directed not at increasing the birth rate but at stimulating large families.
  5. deman73
    deman73 30 May 2014 14: 48
    interesting article - people just need to be allowed to live normally, earn money, etc., the state should be socially oriented towards the family as a unit of society
  6. EwgenyZ
    EwgenyZ 30 May 2014 14: 52
    "The devastation is not in the closets, but in the heads" (C) MA Bulgakov. Likewise, the problems of demography are not due to the fact that "there is not enough money," but because we do not WANT to give birth. And there will be no future without children.
  7. kolyhalovs
    kolyhalovs 30 May 2014 14: 56
    This is a distant echo of the policies that were pursued at the end of the Soviet era. From 1981 to 1987, the birth rate in the Soviet Union increased, the proportion of boys and girls who, right now, in the first decade of the new century, entered the age of marriage increased. That is why there have been more men and women of this age in recent years. They got married and, although they mostly got one child, the odds crawled up a bit. But there is no merit of the current authorities in this.

    I work in statistics and know how numbers are manipulated. And here is another miscalculation. By correctly describing the situation with manipulation, he himself is manipulating. If you’re talking about relative values, that the number of children per woman is growing from year to year (of course, it’s still pretty damn small, but it’s growing), then you must admit that the situation is under some kind of “positive influence”. And any normal person feels the same - the people cannot be fooled. Previously, those who wanted to give birth were twisted with a finger at the temple (you have to look for food, not give birth), but now everything is somewhat different. And he immediately falls into absolute values ​​and begins to manipulate. Oh, how not good!
  8. Walk
    Walk 30 May 2014 14: 59
    It seems that this "professor" remained the remnants of reason in the early 90s. Blatantly lying, distorting the facts. One statement that he was a professor at Moscow State University received $ 10 is already a lie. At the same time, while working as a department assistant, I received about $ 50. And not at Moscow State University, but at Krasnoyarsk University, where salaries were 2-3 times lower than in Moscow. I will not say for sure about the rest of the figures, but I make false conclusions. I myself and many of my friends now have children of the most reproductive age, but of them there is not one who does not plan at least two children.
  9. silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 30 May 2014 15: 03
    This is a very delicate sphere ... help with many children. Help can only be targeted.
    Luminescent gypsy families with many children do not deserve anything but strict rules and supervision.
    A large Caucasus does not experience demographic problems ... what help is there ... and why ??? ... it’s not a matter of nationalism ... we are simply sending money to solve the PROBLEMS ... but in the Caucasus it IS NOT.
    It is necessary to deal with the rest with many children personally ... only point and purely targeted help.
    But the program for regions and nations located in the demographic hole is needed ... and this is not always just money ... social housing is possible ... employment benefits ... help with education ... there is something to think about.
    1. Evgeniy1
      Evgeniy1 30 May 2014 15: 47
      The question is solved quite simply - TO GIVE BENEFITS ON TAXES, that is, on OFFICIAL EARNINGS - "you to the state and the state to you"!
    2. Evgeniy1
      Evgeniy1 30 May 2014 15: 47
      The question is solved quite simply - TO GIVE BENEFITS ON TAXES, that is, on OFFICIAL EARNINGS - "you to the state and the state to you"!
  10. ovgorskiy
    ovgorskiy 30 May 2014 15: 07
    Another expert burying Russia. A sad article. It seems like a smart expert, but does not understand that demography does not rise with money. I would like to ask him what was the maternal capital at the peak of fertility after the war. Poverty, and gave birth to 6-7 children. It's not about money, but about confidence in the future, confidence in one’s country, stability with a slow, but improved quality of life. And most importantly, fewer such experts. Conception of a child does not begin in the pocket, but in the head of the potential parent. IMHO.
  11. volot-voin
    volot-voin 30 May 2014 15: 18
    At the moment, demography is probably problem number 1. If we Russians do not remain, then, accordingly, there will be no one to defend our Homeland, and there’s nothing for it. The majority of those born before the revolution came from the countryside and peasants. My great-grandfather had 9 children, and the rest of the families were usually large. And why? Traditional values, a tribal system, a strong family dominated (there were no divorces). It was profitable to have children, each child is a new worker in the family.
    Unfortunately, in the 20s and 30s, peasants were dispersed, they took people away, people went hungry, they had to go to work in the cities. Of course, there was a noble goal - industrialization (industry was needed for the war), but at what cost it got. At the price of liquidating the peasantry in the form in which it traditionally existed.
    It is necessary to revive the peasantry, the customs of the Russian people, to stop illegal migration from Central Asia (at the same time encourage the arrival of Ukrainians, Belarusians culturally identical to us. Suppress the corruption of children, abortion, etc.
    PS I am not opposed to migration at all, but let specialists come, not laborers. Why not say a good doctor, a Georgian or a brilliant scientist Jew, any other irreplaceable or difficult to replace foreigner if they benefit the country in which they live? But when entire branches of the national economy fall to the mercy of migrants, this is a land and a mess. Foreigners should be useful, not crowding out the indigenous population.
    1. soyuz-nik
      soyuz-nik 30 May 2014 16: 23
      Good health, I wish! hi
      I agree with you in many respects, but how can illegal migration be stopped in the conditions of the already signed EurAsEC, where Kazakhstan has already entered and is going to join Kyrgyzstan? And, it seems, Tajikistan is not averse to joining ...
      In the USSR they already lived behind the Iron Curtain ...
      What prevents the indigenous population of Russia from multiplying and multiplying?
      Somewhere I heard that in the East, for an educated (too smart) wife, they gave lesser kalym ....
  12. aksai61
    aksai61 30 May 2014 15: 24
    Give me the opportunity to earn a decent profession, so that I can support my family and there will be two or three future specialist engineers :) In the meantime, excuse me, a rented apartment, a rusty eight and a salary of 12-15 thousand rubles :( request Excuse me. Boiling up! Break through! And on my street my and the neighborhood kids will run noisy and funny crowd :))))
  13. jktu66
    jktu66 30 May 2014 15: 27
    Unfortunately, our liberals refuse to accept this approach. They pretend to be humanists, allegedly advocate philanthropy, but actually act as humanophobes.
    And what else can Russians expect about liberalists? Unless gay marriage. Brr. Merzost
  14. andj61
    andj61 30 May 2014 15: 34
    Many comments are much more pessimistic than the article itself.
    However, the problem exists, and it needs to be spoken at all levels.
    The state is simply obliged to constantly deal with this problem. Rather than keep money over the hill, thereby supporting a potential adversary, it is better to invest this money in stimulating fertility, especially in the center of Russia, Siberia and the Far East. The demographic problem can become a worse threat for us than American nuclear weapons.
    1. Sour
      Sour 30 May 2014 17: 40
      All true.
      Here on the forum, many are yelling - "you give new factories", "you give new warships", and who will work at these factories and serve on these ships is silent.
      And not to say that nothing is being done to stimulate fertility. But, it seems to me, the matter is not in material incentives. After all, there is no direct relationship between material wealth and fertility. The problems are deeper, they are in changing priorities within society.
  15. The comment was deleted.
    1. andj61
      andj61 30 May 2014 15: 51
      Well, what have you brought your country to in 23 years! But your starting opportunities were much better than in Russia. Jumped, fucked everything! You ruin the country yourself, and look for enemies in everything. Of course, the Russians are to blame for everything.
      The true reason for this war in Ukraine is that the Russians no longer want to be second-class people of their own free will, on their own initiative, neither in Ukraine, nor elsewhere. “Are you used to the Russians bending themselves?” Do you think that you have the right to oppress the Russians, look down at them? Well, prove it right with weapons in your hands. Make us so cool. How many of your corpses do you want to put in order to drive us from this patch of land? And from that? Come closer, we’ve already shot a machine gun. ” - This is the mood of the Russians: today - in New Russia, tomorrow - everywhere. Everyone who thinks he has the right to look down on Russians, consider them “second-rate”, “guests” on the land where they live, will have to defend this right with arms in their hands. Or deflate, moderate their ambitions, treat Russians as absolutely equal citizens of their country. By themselves, meekly, of their own free will, the Russians will no longer allow anyone to look at themselves from top to bottom.
      The Holy War of Russians for the return of Human Dignity is just beginning.
      What are you proud of?
      And we have something to be proud of!
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. soyuz-nik
      soyuz-nik 30 May 2014 16: 36
      Good health, I wish! hi

      Oh, who sows the wind ...

      Maxim, do not consider it for work, at your leisure watch the American science fiction film "My Enemy" ...

      May the Force be with us!
      1. soyuz-nik
        soyuz-nik 30 May 2014 16: 50
        Gentlemen Administrators! Mine to you with a brush!

        I understand that this ... how it is there .... Maxim 1 seems to have violated the rules of the site, but it may be possible to organize a reserve on the site or there is a kunst camera for such ushlepok to look at the freaks with at least one eye. ....

        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 30 May 2014 16: 54
          Quote: soyuz-nik
          but it may be possible to organize a reserve on the site or there is a kunst camera for such ushlepok in order to look at the freaks with at least one eye .....

          Go to the site, look there with all your eyes. The whole Kunz-protected debiloid.
          1. soyuz-nik
            soyuz-nik 30 May 2014 17: 17
            Thank you for the tip!

  16. The comment was deleted.
    1. pts-m
      pts-m 30 May 2014 15: 53
      shut up procrastinator, the corresponding services are already following you.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Twice RUSSIAN
      Twice RUSSIAN 30 May 2014 16: 12
      You write your address Maksimushka. Invite to visit. Weak?
    4. screw cutter
      screw cutter 30 May 2014 16: 23
      Before writing any x-th here, I would have bothered to study the history of the origin of the words "I am a Nazi muzzle," and "crest." This, let it be known to you, until 1912, one people, so you water yourself with Mr.
      Otto von Bismarck: “The power of Russia can only be undermined by separating Ukraine from it ... it is necessary not only to tear off, but also to oppose Ukraine to Russia, to pit two parts of a single people and watch how a brother will kill his brother. To do this, you only need to find and nurture traitors among the national elite and, with their help, change the self-awareness of one part of the great people to such an extent that they will hate everything Russian, hate their kind, without realizing it. Everything else is a matter of time. ”
      But Gogol and Shevchenko considered themselves Russian, and, I am a Nazi face, they called ALL men wearing beards a la Lenin, i.e., short beards, it was just a fashion like urban, and, accordingly, men with a crest were called Ukrainians, a rustic fashion .
      1. screw cutter
        screw cutter 30 May 2014 16: 59
        Interestingly, the moderator in the place "k_a_ts_a_p" inserts "I am a Nazi muzzle"
  17. Dyagilev
    Dyagilev 30 May 2014 16: 02
    ... Our country spends ten times less money on maternity capital and child benefits on the value of national income than EU countries. But if we want to become a normal demographic country, we will have to increase these costs by 10 times ...
    To approach this question thus, is the same as fighting obesity by throwing all means to research liposuction techniques, although the correct solution is obvious and does not require special investments. Current psychologists - 5 columns in the field of morality. Instead of explaining how not to kill, they tell how to live happily with it later (in the context of this topic). In general, those who do this do not want toli, toli really does not have the necessary knowledge and has no idea about the problem.
    1. Sour
      Sour 30 May 2014 18: 09
      Quote: Dyagilev
      Our country spends ten times less money on maternity capital and child allowances on the value of national income than EU countries

      In the EU countries, the birth rate is lower than ours.
      1. Dyagilev
        Dyagilev 30 May 2014 22: 23
        This is a quote from the text of the article, which explains that the author has little understanding of how to solve the problem. In komenty I stated this. And the European approach is a direct path to extinction, at least, as a maximum, to destruction by a more militant community.
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. mamont5
    mamont5 30 May 2014 16: 37
    Everything is correct, so that there is a family with children, the family needs its own home. To have many children, you need a big house and it could be freely maintained. Everything is interconnected.
    1. screw cutter
      screw cutter 30 May 2014 16: 46
      For this, they lived in the old days as one big family, both old and young. Old people not only followed grandchildren and great-grandchildren, but also told tales and stories, taught something, and children helped them. And now the cult is that a young family should living separately is not right. I think so.
  20. screw cutter
    screw cutter 30 May 2014 16: 41
    My opinion is that in order to discuss demography one must first put oneself in the place of a young family, 1) Where to live. 2) If you give birth, it will earn one parent and the expenses will increase, so the family budget will go down. 3) After the end of maternity leave, even if they take on an old job. Where are the children to be? Grandparents are now plowing up to the grave, and at kindergartens or prices are unbearable or queues are not measured. 4) Reduce taxes or even remove all goods for children. It’s more expensive than an adult, and child car seats are more expensive than a car seat, and you need to change it every year. 5) Where can I go with my child? 6) What should I do with my child’s leisure? Of course it's good with parents, but there were circles earlier, sports sections, I don’t say that it’s free, but so that an ordinary family has the opportunity. 7) And medical care is a separate issue, I think that in Soviet times (despite all its shortcomings) this was better.
  21. siberalt
    siberalt 30 May 2014 16: 42
    Somehow, in Russia, a passport is issued from the age of 14. And the marriageable age was lowered to 16. I do not think that if we double the maternity capital, it will noticeably affect the birth rate. Large families can afford wealthy citizens or very poor. Although the motivation is different. In 60-70-tenths the people from the barracks began to move to "Khrushchevkas" with a housing and sanitary norm of 9 sq. M. m per person. But in fact, each region had its own norms of 5-6 sq. meters. Once every five years, they were revised and another half square was added. But it never came to 9. Buying a house or a co-operative apartment at first was not affordable for everyone, and then it was impossible to get into the queue at the housing cooperative. The birth rate also fell due to the government's policy of "leveling the city with the countryside." Equalized! Passports were handed out and the village youth remembered what they called. The families of my father and mother had 5 children each. The older brother has 7 (already all adults). I agree with the author that child benefits should be up to the age of majority of children and not lower than the minimum wage. They should also apply to full-time students. But not indiscriminately, but for those who really need to be supported.
    1. Mama_Cholli
      Mama_Cholli 30 May 2014 17: 43
      Apparently in the state. the view has grown that real estate spoils family relationships. smile On the principle of Muscovites spoiled the housing issue.
      And the young ones think the Government ay ... where do we work in order to earn at least 15 million rubles. on three in Moscow, so as not to huddle in the corners? smile
  22. Signaller
    Signaller 30 May 2014 16: 59
    The government should work on this issue days and nights. What is-honest-frankly ???. Condoms are excellent quality. It is time for the government to go to the plant for their production and punch holes with nights and days. Maybe there is still time to catch up.
    1. sv68
      sv68 30 May 2014 17: 19
      the signalman, just don’t trust this important matter to Medvedev-he’s all pro-IPhonite-holes, he’ll make virtual ... laughing
  23. The comment was deleted.
  24. Signaller
    Signaller 30 May 2014 17: 09
    Following the topic.
    Quote .--- Essentially, there is currently no labor protection. What has current capitalism led to? Look at our daughters and sons, who work 12-14 hours.
    Personally, I deal with this issue every day. Now the contractors in normal offices are so squeezed that they don't even want to work. A step to the side - shooting. The penalties for ephemeral requirements are such that they don't seem weak. It's easier to sit at home than to work. And most importantly, a link to the safety rules and instructions. And there these requirements, what they mean, are not born, but so the leadership decided. What ???? And where is the law. ??? And the law is that the tongue, where he turned, there and it came out. And then they will send the person to death, "and we have nothing to do with it, he climbed there himself." Where did we go, we say - ???
    And where did you let him ???? There ... Here he climbed, and there a voltage of 10 kV. and there is no man, but water from them is like a goose. This applies to labor protection. A little bit of litter is boiling.
    1. Mama_Cholli
      Mama_Cholli 30 May 2014 17: 37
      Normul, it is ... Super profits in everyone’s head are resold by 300%, and a worker should be thrown (by law) so that he wouldn’t die.
  25. uzer 13
    uzer 13 30 May 2014 17: 15
    [quote] [And it seems to me personally that by 2025–2030 in our country people will come to power who understand that the fate of the state depends on demography]

    Here comes the lord, the lord will help us ...
    If people have nothing to support their children, then children will not be born. No benefits and compensations will close the hole in the family budget due to the lack of real income.
    Simply put, until the robbery of the population has stopped, there will be no improvement in the demoraphic situation and Russia will die out.
    Who benefits and what tools are used? -Everyone can figure it out.
    You just need to pose the questions correctly, then there will be the right answers.
    1. Sour
      Sour 30 May 2014 18: 01
      Once again - there is no direct correlation between incomes and fertility.
      Absolutely no. And not when it was not.
    2. Sour
      Sour 30 May 2014 18: 05
      There is no direct correlation between incomes and fertility. No, and never has been.
      I am for helping the state to families, but this will not solve the problem.
  26. Mama_Cholli
    Mama_Cholli 30 May 2014 17: 34
    The article really makes an ordinary person think, unfortunately (as described in this article), the ministers do not like to think for a long time, they are used to just reporting ... (moreover, reporting both to their leadership and to their vast pockets).
  27. Taltsetl
    Taltsetl 30 May 2014 17: 45
    Article, I do not know how much to the topic
  28. Sour
    Sour 30 May 2014 17: 51
    All of you write correctly, dear.
    But the problem is much deeper. It is not only in the standard of living, but in the change of priorities and values ​​within society. The family is not in the first place among young people now, that’s the problem. In the first place is different. Even for women, work and career come first, not family.
    But there really is no correlation between the standard of living and the birth rate. If there is, then it is the opposite. In Europe, child allowances are much larger than ours, not even compare. Plus tax breaks for those who have children. Is the birth rate higher? Yes, no matter how the hell.
    I, of course, for helping young families from the state. But this will not solve the problem, because the reasons are deeper.
  29. The comment was deleted.
  30. The comment was deleted.
  31. Sour
    Sour 30 May 2014 18: 15
    There is no correlation between the income level of the population and the birth rate.
    I’ve written about this several times already, but someone is carefully cleaning my posts.
    Allergy to the truth?
  32. Nyx
    Nyx 31 May 2014 09: 53
    This, apparently, is the law of history. The higher the development, the more you get rid of the trouble. Children are a cruel mess, and if there are no more than two of them, then the inconvenience is compensated by the joy of them. But more is already too much. Let's cloning then zapilit, damn it.
    And if it is more scientific, then as a student of the relevant specialty, I can say that the point is urbanization. The metropolis is gerogenic and does not provide for the reproduction of its population. It is necessary then to keep "farms" in the form of villages with a high standard of living, or something. In general, this problem is more difficult to solve than to return Ukraine.
    1. Sour
      Sour 31 May 2014 11: 49
      Fertility in Russia has been falling (albeit unevenly) since 1911, and average life expectancy has been falling (also unevenly) since 1963.
      Those who want to blame all this on the collapse of the USSR are in fact lying. They deliberately lie. The article is politically biased, purely propaganda. The characteristic word for the article is "current capitalism". Like, capitalism is to blame for everything.
      Quote: Nyx
      It is necessary then to keep "farms" in the form of villages with a high standard of living, or something.

      Visit Europe if you haven’t. There in rural areas the birth rate is not higher than in cities. In each rural house 2-3 people usually live. Despite the fact that the standard of living there is high, not a couple of ours. And child benefits are also not comparable with ours.
  33. Dmitry Toderes
    Dmitry Toderes 31 May 2014 13: 17
    I don’t understand why the author is skeptical about demography in Russia.
    1. Dyagilev
      Dyagilev 31 May 2014 21: 22
      All these calculations only say that very soon there will be no one to speak Russian.