Military Review

They are dying out

135
Marc Adomanis, a columnist from Forbes magazine, is a big fan of writing on social and economic issues. Especially takes his demographics. He has repeatedly exposed the myth that Russia is dying out. Yes, the Russians are far from perfect, but it’s obviously premature to talk about extinction. And in general, the demographic situation in Russia almost exactly corresponds to that in the European Union, the columnist is sure.


They are dying out


Population crisis, said columnist Mark Adomanis ("Forbes"), - a phenomenon common to Europe, including Russia. And you should not inflate the situation in Russia: for example, in Italy things are worse.

Yes, the observer reminds, it’s true that the Russian Federation suffered a “painful” demographic crisis in the 1990s. The transfer of a planned economy to the market rails "did not go smoothly, to say the least." Reforms led to a "transformational recession." Prices soared, unemployment increased, people's savings turned into dust.

During the 1990-s, the Russian population fell into a real catastrophe, which was difficult to imagine. The Russians experienced a number of "economic and political upheavals." The country noted a "terrifying surge in mortality associated with alcoholism." People died from "external causes": murder, suicide, accidents. All this led to a “social collapse” on a scale comparable to the military devastation.

“The nightmarish experience of Russia 1990's,” adomanis remarks, entrenched in the minds of the people, gave rise to the feeling of a “dying nation” among the political class. It is considered to be that Russia is a “dying nation”, having “an extremely gloomy prospect for the future.” In the US, they do not doubt it: for example, Mr. Obama says that Russia's population is declining, which means that "история on our side. " He is echoed by Vice President Biden.

Publicist Kevin Dram, composing fables for the Mother Jones network resource, sarcastically observes that Russia has nothing to call itself “a great power,” because its economy is comparable to the Italian one, and the demographic situation is worse than in the same Italy.

Others also argue. The premise of bad demography in Russia is not proven, but simply stated, “taken for granted.” Russian demographic trends are “unequivocally terrible” - and that’s the point. And the conclusion: therefore, in the future, "the possibilities of projection of power" of the country "will sharply decrease."

The actual birthrate data provided by the World Bank, however, gives a different picture, Adomanis writes.

Russia's long-term demographic forecast is clearly better here than in the aforementioned Italy. Over the past four decades, the birth rate in Russia was about 15% higher than in Italy. And, even more interestingly, this difference "has grown significantly over the past decade." In recent years, the birth rate in Russia has recovered to around 1,75, while in Italy it is “frozen” at an indicator near 1,4. Yes, the 1990's situation after the collapse of the USSR really affected the birth rate and mortality in Russia. And yet, during a certain time, the birth rate in Russia was noticeably higher than in Italy, the author points out.

The allegedly “unequivocally terrible” demography of Russia almost exactly corresponds to the indicators of the states of the European Union, and from 1975 onwards! Speech, in essence, is about an almost identical birth rate.

Open data suggests that there is hardly a "fundamental difference between long-term trends in population in Russia and Europe," said the publicist. Both Russia and the countries of Europe are “doomed” to experience a significant decline in the birth rate in the long term.

In addition, the current "Russian problems" are not unique and even "not particularly serious." The EU average, which Adomanis considered, allowed him to identify "huge discrepancies between different countries." Some countries, such as Sweden, the United Kingdom and France, seem to be able to achieve significant population growth (and long-term). Other countries, such as Germany, Italy, Greece and Spain, are facing protracted population crises. And they will probably be “much sharper” than the crisis in Russia.

28 March 2016 on the site Interfax a press-release of the round table “Socio-demographic problems of the reproductive health of the population of Russia”, held at the Central House of Journalists.

The materials indicate that the “week of silence” before an abortion, operating in Russia since the beginning of the year according to the law “On the Basics of Protecting the Health of Citizens”, gives on average 7-8% refusals from artificial interruption of pregnancy. This was announced at the round table by the head of the department of medical and social research of the Federal State Budgetary Institution “Scientific Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology”. Academician V.I. Kulakova "Marina Shuvalov.

These 7 or 8% - 75 thousands of saved lives, said the head of the project "Stork on the Roof" Angelika Khudoleeva.

Sergey Zakharov, deputy director of the HSE Institute of Demography, noted that specialists are now witnessing the transformation of couples' attitudes towards fertility: “The average age of a mother rises very intensively, now women of 30 and even older have a birth rate higher than in the Soviet period. A grand transformation of the fertility model has taken place. Young people have limited their activity in the formation of families, more adult women, on the contrary, have expanded. ” However, according to the expert, the probability of first birth is reduced. The proportion of childless women is 15% (almost two times more than in the USSR). But this figure is not the highest compared with the developed countries: in Japan, childless women 25%, and in Germany and Austria - 20%.

Thus, we add, the picture of the birth rate in Russia is artificially blackened in the USA and Europe. As open statistics show, the situation with fertility rates may be worse in the EU countries than in Russia - and this despite the fact that Russia periodically falls into crisis zones, and the same West considers it as “incomplete” democracy, where the authorities do not always remember about "human rights" and "freedoms".

Experts remind that there are much more childless women in Japan, Austria and Germany than in Russia, and the birth rate in Russia is higher than in Italy.

The emphasis of American politicians and some experts on the "reduction" of the population of Russia and therefore the lack of prospects for Moscow ("the story is on our side", as Mr. Obama noted) look more like a "complacent" means than the truth. However, the White House does not have to wait for the truth. The local masters are ready to deceive themselves, if only to continue to imagine the “great and exceptional America” as a hegemon.

Observed and commented on Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
135 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. aba
    aba 30 March 2016 06: 18
    +11
    That's right, but just as I read in an article about demography, that for simple reproduction of the population, each family should have more than two children. Each one!
    1. Finches
      Finches 30 March 2016 07: 15
      +1
      Comrades! You saw the sugary face of this Adomanis - he is 100%, at least, a latent bugger! He can’t figure out his demography, but he is swinging at the analysis of an entire nation! laughing
      1. venaya
        venaya 30 March 2016 07: 31
        +5
        What about everyone? This is really problematic.
        An individual approach is really needed here. There are too many drug addicts and just alcoholics, and genetic diseases should not be discounted. So healthy families should take a little more effort, less than 4 children are unacceptable, better even more, only the state should not relax here, and such families will need differentiated help, depending on real needs. Do not forget that the Old Believers have such a family and more often happens, even ten children per family!
        1. DVxa
          DVxa 30 March 2016 08: 11
          +2
          At the moment, only in our country (from the countries of the post-Soviet space) there is a program to support demography at the proper level. Yes, many consider it insufficient, but this is slyness. 450 thousand (for Southern Siberia) for a second child will help improve living conditions, for example, replacing 1k with 2k. The Young Family program brings more in total. As for large families, there is a program for the allocation of land plots on sooooo favorable terms. I can't say it all works perfectly, but it works!
          1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
            Uncle VasyaSayapin 30 March 2016 10: 24
            +30
            This system is utter nonsense. For the second child 450 tr So what? Is two enough? And for the third? Maternity capital is issued once. Either for the second or for the third and subsequent.
            What is the motivation? A woman in a low-paid job can earn 240 thousand rubles a year. And for three years while "sitting" with the child 720! People give birth to a second child because they want a second! You need to motivate for the third and beyond. And if they put things in order in construction and real estate trade, prices themselves would fall to 30 thousand rubles per square meter. No help would be needed. Now they collect money from us and give it to "respected people", who are also called officials and bandits.
            The program for allocating plots of large families - govno complete. I myself received such a site, I know what I'm saying. This land is worth nothing and no one is building anything there! Long thought to take it at all or not, people say - take it, if they give it, maybe after 20 years it will come in handy.
            The program for helping young families is certainly good, but if you spent your youth on earning a first-small apartment, not everyone's parents help. Then is that all? You are not young - go to jo, give birth to children like that? And if the eldest is 18, then the family is no longer large. Funny, no !? He had many children twice: the first time, until the eldest turned 18, and the second time when his wife gave birth to the 4th child. And how do they count meters? They take all your housing, including a share in the parental apartment in another city, deduct the "adult" children living with you. And if the deterioration in housing was less than 5 years ago, the result is not accepted. And that's just to get interest rate benefits!
            The state is not doing anything real to help "large" families. Maximum - they will be invited once every three years somewhere. The diploma will be awarded. And at school, children will be provided with free meals (half-portion), which the daughter does not want to eat, because a lot of poisoning.
            Yes, basic things are inaccessible for large families: multi-room apartments with small rooms, multi-bed rooms for rest in their native land at sea, multi-seat cars with a third row that does not rest against the back door - after a 6-ton truck drove into the back of my Qashqai + 2 I realized, that such machines are not safe. And show me an employer who will hire a woman with many children! Even if he is a professional with good work experience and children of school age! "Large families" - 3-4 children are permissible in our country only for people whose income is 3-4 times higher than the average, provided that these people are ready to live in cramped quarters, fill their clothes up to the holes and be modest in nutrition.
            That's all demography and concern for the state and society.
            1. Cap.Morgan
              Cap.Morgan 30 March 2016 14: 40
              0
              I agree.
              Itself would still have a child, but ...
            2. Gregazov
              Gregazov 30 March 2016 18: 37
              0
              I have the same story, I had many children twice. He earned the apartment in 22 years of excellent service with the rank of colonel on the sixth floor of a five-story building. True five-room with a total area of ​​103 square meters. meter.
            3. max702
              max702 30 March 2016 23: 25
              +1
              Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
              Large families "- 3-4 children are permissible in our country only for people whose income is 3-4 times higher than the average, provided that these people are ready to live in cramped quarters, fill their clothes up to holes and be modest in nutrition.
              That's all demography and concern for the state and society.

              I agree with us the state in itself is not adapted to large families! Here is an example for you, we have a sufficient number of hockey players who play abroad and get good money BUT even more who play here and get no less money, and now look at the composition of their families, those who abroad often have 3-5 children, and who we have 1-2 maximum 3 .. It seems that both have money, but raising a child is much more difficult than there, a lot of all kinds of problems of a domestic, legislative nature and other difficulties .. Forgive me, but with 3 children mother will not work! For it is physically impossible or the children will be on their own and what question will grow out of them ..
            4. Corporal Valera
              Corporal Valera 31 March 2016 02: 30
              +2
              Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
              The state does nothing real to help "large" families.

              +1
              In order to fix the demographic situation, you need to make only a few strong-willed decisions:
              1) Provide housing for young families;
              2) For the second and subsequent children to pay the woman a pension so that she can not work;
              3) Make children's goods cheap;
              4) Ensure the quality and accessibility of professional and higher education.
              All! And you can put your maternity "capital" into your income statement! Another thing is that these measures will never be implemented in a capitalist country.
            5. dokusib
              dokusib 31 March 2016 04: 56
              +1
              Uncle Vasya is absolutely right. For some reason, it is believed that it is enough to have a child and everything further forms by itself. And they need to be dressed and fed, and you want better. And it turns out that all the time at work. But they also need to be educated somehow and preferably by oneself, not hoping for school and kindergarten because there classes and groups are 1,5 - 2 times more than they should be, and there is no time to deal with all teachers.
          2. PHANTOM-AS
            PHANTOM-AS 30 March 2016 11: 01
            +8
            Quote: DVxa
            At the moment, only in our country (from the countries of the post-Soviet space) is there a program to support demography at the proper level.

            Look at the program in Belarus!
            Quote: DVxa
            450 thousand (for Southern Siberia) for a second child will help improve housing conditions, for example, replacing 1k with 2k.

            And to feed, dress, teach children, at current prices, what kind of shisha people will be
            1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
              Uncle VasyaSayapin 30 March 2016 11: 19
              +11
              By the way, I forgot to tell him about Belarus. A colleague from Belarus laughs at me, says that in Belarus for a long time they would just give me a big apartment and that’s it. But your country, says the rich, is not like our Belarus!
              1. DVxa
                DVxa 30 March 2016 12: 46
                +3
                Yes, I repent, I forgot about RB.
                I'm not trying to spit on joy for these programs. I say that they exist and work, although not always perfectly. My spouse couldn’t find a job because I sat with my first child for a long time and she has no experience.

                I'm not used to putting all the blame on someone.
                Why do I only hear how someone is to blame for human problems ?! "I began to live worse because I was not given / taken away" or for some other reason. This is the opinion of the majority! You can blame others / power / yes anyone, but this will not make your life better. Therefore, all these conversations are nothing more than pathos or idle talk, and also during working hours. Well it is, lyrics.

                There is an opportunity to receive benefits, I will receive them, no, I will extend the family myself and without any benefits.

                As far as I know, there is a proposal to motivate the birth of a third child, and to cancel for the second. The size (according to rumors) is about 1 million. And the second one was introduced because there was one child in the family, now there are few who will surprise you.

                And in the end, they give birth to children for themselves, and not for the sake of money.
                1. PHANTOM-AS
                  PHANTOM-AS 30 March 2016 14: 13
                  0
                  Quote: DVxa
                  There is an opportunity to receive benefits, I will receive them, no, I will extend the family myself and without any benefits.

                  I have three children and we raise, educate, teach them
                  not thanks to the state, but contrary to!
                  So to hell with me and my children is such a state?
                  Quote: DVxa
                  And in the end, they give birth to children for themselves, and not for the sake of money.

                  That's right, only in this case, my children do not owe anything to this state!

                  PS. Try to explain to a 15-year-old teenager who has been in a geyrope why we live in such ....
            2. andrey-ivanov
              andrey-ivanov 30 March 2016 11: 56
              +8
              And to feed, dress, teach children, at current prices, what kind of shisha people will be

              And now what are they raising? Raised, grow and will grow! Many do not expect a nifig from the state at all - they pull the strap themselves. But the state should provide decent medicine and education.
          3. dokusib
            dokusib 31 March 2016 04: 36
            0
            I can tell you that this does not work perfectly, and sometimes it does not work.
        2. Ivan_ich
          Ivan_ich 30 March 2016 10: 53
          +4
          The introduction of criminal liability for entrepreneurs for salaries in envelopes, while supporting small businesses by organizing affordable loans and reducing pension fees at times. Creation of working unions. Correction of the state bias from small business towards corporations ... and a number of steps to support ordinary people. Then you look and demographics will begin to change. Maternal capital is a great idea, only a few have managed to get through this money without changing anything in their life.
          1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
            Uncle VasyaSayapin 30 March 2016 11: 16
            +4
            On salaries in envelopes and small businesses, "respected people" in uniforms or tattoos earn. The Duma adopts laws for them. Who are you encroaching on? For this they will suffer anyone. You cannot replace corporations with small businesses; they must develop in parallel. The miners' unions at one time supported Yeltsin against Gorbachev, created problems in other industries and took part in the destruction of the country. The easiest and most affordable way is to change people's perception of the world. At least that's possible. And what you write - no.
            PS It is especially ridiculous to punish entrepreneurs for ZP in an envelope and to support them. Or are you a cunning person and want to take money from businessmen, crank through the state apparatus, plundered half, and then help them for the rest - ay-ay-ay, how not good, fool people!
            1. Ivan_ich
              Ivan_ich 30 March 2016 17: 09
              0
              Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
              "Respected people" in uniforms or tattoos earn on salaries in envelopes and small businesses. The Duma adopts laws for them. Who have you encroached on?
              PS It is especially ridiculous to punish entrepreneurs for ZP in an envelope and to support them. Or are you a cunning person and want to take money from businessmen, crank through the state apparatus, plundered half, and then help them for the rest - ay-ay-ay, how not good, fool people!


              It is especially ridiculous to punish entrepreneurs for this if you are an entrepreneur yourself ..))
              You cunning man, Uncle Vasya ...
            2. Ivan_ich
              Ivan_ich 30 March 2016 17: 23
              +3
              Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
              The miners' unions at one time supported Yeltsin against Gorbachev, created problems in other industries and participated in the destruction of the country. The easiest and most affordable way is to change people's perception of the world. At least it's possible.

              Those unions about which you speak nominally unions at that time were no longer. For the same reason, they could no longer legally decide anything. It only remained to knock on helmets. The essence of trade unions is not to change presidents, but to control employers on the Labor Code, wages, etc. And when the norms of the Labor Code in our country are respected then the worldview will begin to change ...
            3. Ivan_ich
              Ivan_ich 30 March 2016 17: 49
              -1
              Here you write that money is already stolen:
              Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
              "Respected people" in uniforms or tattoos earn on salaries in envelopes and small businesses. The Duma adopts laws for them. Who have you encroached on?

              And here that will be stolen:
              Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
              Or are you a cunning person and want to take money from businessmen, crank through the state apparatus, plundered half, and then help them for the rest - ay-ay-ay, how not good, fool people!

              But since when is direct injection of money into the state budget considered theft ?! It seems to me that you are an uncle - a mishandled Cossack ... What are you doing in VO?))) To whom do you fool your head ...?
            4. Ivan_ich
              Ivan_ich 30 March 2016 17: 56
              0
              PS
              Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
              Small corporations cannot be replaced; they must develop in parallel.

              And where did I write that corporations need to be replaced by small businesses? What nonsense. I wrote about the bias in favor of corporations which has a place to be, from which small business suffers. Read the comments carefully and you will be happy ...))
          2. Gorodovik
            Gorodovik 30 March 2016 12: 55
            +3
            To improve demography, in principle, the creation of budget housing is enough. After all, the point is to create a large family if you can not afford a house. The main thing to live was where. Yes, there is such a small squiggle that many large families are roughly speaking poor. And not because they were not lucky, but because they do not want to do anything. I know one family like that. 4 shut up and father never worked anywhere. Not because he could not, but because he did not want to. But then the maternal capital and the plot were adjusted. Well, in principle it’s not so sad. But one day I found out that her mother had 2 more in the orphanage as she had been deprived of her parental rights before that. And this is already sad.
        3. Gregazov
          Gregazov 30 March 2016 18: 30
          0
          Report your own successes.
      2. Weyland
        Weyland 31 March 2016 02: 15
        0
        Quote: Finches
        Comrades! You saw the sugary face of this Adomanis - he is 100%, at least, a latent bugger! He can’t figure out his demography, but he is swinging at the analysis of an entire nation! laughing


        And why did his analysis not please you? By the fact that "He has more than once exposed the myth that Russia is dying out on the pages of the publication?" Minus!
    2. Professor
      Professor 30 March 2016 08: 09
      +5
      Quote: aba
      That's right, but just as I read in an article about demography, that for simple reproduction of the population, each family should have more than two children. Each one!

      No. Two children in the family will not even be able to maintain the population at the current level. This requires an average of 2.15-2.2. In other words, at least two children, and each fifth family has 3. For growth, more children are needed.

      PS
      Statistics for Russia:
      First birth at an average age of 24.6 years
      The average number of children per woman in 2015 1.61
    3. major124
      major124 30 March 2016 08: 24
      +3
      Three ... you need to close with a plus ...
      1. yushch
        yushch 30 March 2016 09: 21
        +1
        In addition to an increase in the birth rate compared to 90 mi, Russia ranks second in the world after the United States in the number of migrants arriving for permanent residence, this also needs to be taken into account in statistics.
        1. Professor
          Professor 30 March 2016 09: 27
          +1
          Quote: yushch
          In addition to increasing fertility compared to 90 mi, Russia occupies second place in the world after the United States in terms of the number of migrants arriving for permanent residence, this also needs to be taken into account in statistics.

          Yeah. In Russia, this figure is 1.69 per 1000, which puts Russia at 54th (fifty fourth) place in the USA 3.86 (34th place).
          First place in the world Qatar 22.39 migrants per 1000 population.
          Teach materiel. fool
          1. yushch
            yushch 30 March 2016 09: 59
            0
            Quote: Professor
            Quote: yushch
            In addition to increasing fertility compared to 90 mi, Russia occupies second place in the world after the United States in terms of the number of migrants arriving for permanent residence, this also needs to be taken into account in statistics.

            Yeah. In Russia, this figure is 1.69 per 1000, which puts Russia at 54th (fifty fourth) place in the USA 3.86 (34th place).
            First place in the world Qatar 22.39 migrants per 1000 population.
            Teach materiel. fool


            Hi to the guards, keep shitting on the branches? It’s clear what else to do in the booth? A real professor will not have enough time to eat so much online. good
          2. Sergej1972
            Sergej1972 30 March 2016 10: 12
            0
            It's about absolute numbers.
            1. Professor
              Professor 30 March 2016 18: 43
              0
              Quote: Sergej1972
              It's about absolute numbers.

              Well bring them absolute numbers. Together we laugh who in what place. wink
      2. PHANTOM-AS
        PHANTOM-AS 30 March 2016 11: 30
        +7
        In the RSFSR for 1989, 147400 million lived. people, and According to the All-Russian Population Census In 2010, the population of the Russian Federation amounted to 142,9 million people.
        That is, 4,5 million people are direct population losses over 21 years !!!
        This is officer data. And now again on the officer. we consider the data:
        The population of the Russian Federation as of 01.01.1990 was 147665081 people. From January 1, 1990 to December 31, 2013, over 24 people died more than were born in 12919515 years. That is, as of December 31, 2013, from 147665081 people remained 134745566 people. Of these, approximately five million people have moved to other countries. Therefore, from 134745566 people in the Russian Federation, perhaps 130 million people remained. These are those residents of the Russian Federation who lived in the Russian Federation on January 1, 1990, and their descendants. The remaining permanent residents of the Russian Federation are migrants who moved to the Russian Federation after January 1, 1990, but mainly migration to the Russian Federation began after the 2010 census, as the state was appalled at the loss of population!
        The number of permanent population of the Russian Federation as of 01.01.2014 was 143657134 people.
        Under the rule of V.V. Putin from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2013, over 14 more people died than were born in 7484458 years
        But there is still the concept of lost population growth!
        Between 1960 and 1989, the population of the Russian Federation at the expense of those born and died on average increased by 0,7104% per year. If for 1990 - 2013 the increase in the population of the Russian Federation on average was 0,7104% annually, then by December 31, 2013 the population would be approximately 175 million people. (Calculation: 147665081 x 1,007104 in 24 degrees = 147665081 x 1,18518 = 175). Compared with the RSFSR, the lost natural population growth of the Russian Federation for 1990 - 2013 was approximately 40 million people. (175-134,7 = 40,3).
        This is what the counter-revolutionary coup of 1991 and the reforms of 25 years gave us!
    4. nimboris
      nimboris 30 March 2016 09: 50
      +24
      Fertility, say, at zero. I have a 5th child born on March 12, the second son. All children from one father and mother. We now have exactly the Seven I. They will be tired of waiting when we die out. They themselves just would not have died out earlier.
      1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
        Uncle VasyaSayapin 30 March 2016 10: 41
        +6
        God bless you! To you and your family! And I have already strained with four.
    5. hardroc
      hardroc 30 March 2016 09: 53
      -2
      Quote: aba
      for simple reproduction of the population, each family should have more than two children.

      First of all, you need to ask yourself a question, but what for?
      No, before everything was clear. The master was interested in his slaves to multiply and multiply as much as possible. Slaves cost money, well, something like cattle in a stall, from this he became rich. The same applies to the Bolsheviks, who, apart from "fiery speeches", actually did not differ from the bar. And the population from the master's slaves, too. And for the unwillingness to breed, the Bolsheviks were fined, called the "childlessness tax."
      And now? What kind of "race of reproduction" is this? People decide for themselves how many children they can "raise". Because the most important thing is to "raise" a child, not to give birth. And so that they can "raise" as many children as possible should be monitored by the state. This is precisely one of its most important tasks. And to produce hunger for the sake of "correct" numbers in statistics, this makes no sense. For how many children the state, through its policy, will create conditions for full-fledged growth, so much should be. So much will be. No more and no less.
      And "simple" and "extended" reproduction has nothing to do with it. Because we are talking about people, not livestock in a stall. Therefore, the priority should be the quality of life, not quantity.
      1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
        Uncle VasyaSayapin 30 March 2016 10: 49
        +3
        And so and so.
        If the population decreases, the size of the market, the number of taxes, will fall, and then the deterioration of defense will follow. Even the "hunger", as you said, the society needs, tk. the state and society are more stable when it uses its native "hunger", and not a newcomer. If there is enough food, the society benefits from population growth.
        But it’s definitely more profitable for a particular person to have a small family, because the quality of life will be higher.
        Large families are, in fact, everyday heroism that no one will appreciate. I can say so, because at 4 children.
        1. hardroc
          hardroc 30 March 2016 12: 18
          -1
          Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
          followed by a deterioration in defense

          The population does not decrease in 1 day. This is a long process and defense capability is quite possible to adapt to it.
          Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
          Even the "hunger", as you said, the society needs, tk. the state and society are more stable when it uses its native "hunger", and not a newcomer.

          Who told you this? It is just necessary to do this in a civilized manner, as is customary throughout the world, and worked home.
          And the standard of living of the "aboriginal" population is sacred. And most importantly, that for the sake of which normal states exist.
          Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
          If there is enough food, population growth is beneficial to society.

          People will figure out what is beneficial to them. There will be conditions, they will give birth. There will be no conditions, you will not force. Although, there are different "individuals".
          Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
          But it’s definitely more profitable for a particular person to have a small family, because the quality of life will be higher.

          No, you're wrong. Children constitute a fairly significant level of the "joy factor" in a normal person. And the fact that goons will not breed is even good. Defective genetics will be less transmitted further.
          Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
          Large families are, in fact, everyday heroism that no one will appreciate.

          You wrote this nonsense. Nobody pulls anyone for ... There is joy from children, you can have them "noon", give birth. No joy, don't give birth. And "everyday heroism" is not required from anyone.
          I would give a certificate for the right to have children (more than one) in place of the state. There would be many factors to consider. And last but not least, the ability to provide the child with normal, comfortable human conditions during his growth.
          And without it, at a minimum, one child, that's all. And comprehensive assistance to him during the period of growth from the state, if the parents are not able to provide this. This is how it was recently in China when its population was poor.
          1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
            Uncle VasyaSayapin 30 March 2016 12: 45
            +2
            Demagogy and nothing more.
    6. Vasily Krylov
      Vasily Krylov 30 March 2016 15: 28
      +1
      You are wrong, colleague, not two, but three. Please note that this is not mathematics, but life.
    7. bk316
      bk316 31 March 2016 21: 56
      +2
      Quote: aba
      each a family must have more than two children.

      Explain!
      I thought that if 20% of families will have one child, 30% will have 2 children and 50% three or more, then this is more than enough for growth.

      Is something wrong with arithmetic? Or you?
    8. The comment was deleted.
  2. Adik89
    Adik89 30 March 2016 06: 21
    .
    It is necessary to cancel all contraceptives and the birth rate will skyrocket!
    1. aba
      aba 30 March 2016 06: 26
      +8
      Then abortion should also be prohibited, which will lead to an increase in clandestine abortions with all the consequences for life and reproductive function for expectant mothers.
      1. PHANTOM-AS
        PHANTOM-AS 30 March 2016 12: 51
        +3
        Quote: Adik89
        It is necessary to cancel all contraceptives and the birth rate will skyrocket!

        Quote: aba
        Then abortion must also be banned.

        First of all, it is necessary to build a socially responsible state, raise real incomes of citizens, ensure people's confidence in the future - then the birth rate will increase.
        And in poverty no one will give birth.
        1. Cap.Morgan
          Cap.Morgan 30 March 2016 17: 03
          +1
          Quote: PHANTOM-AS
          Quote: Adik89
          It is necessary to cancel all contraceptives and the birth rate will skyrocket!

          Quote: aba
          Then abortion must also be banned.

          First of all, it is necessary to build a socially responsible state, raise real incomes of citizens, ensure people's confidence in the future - then the birth rate will increase.
          And in poverty no one will give birth.

          That would be taught how to do it.
          In Germany, labor productivity is three times higher.
          So WE SHOULD WORK THREE TIMES INTENSIVE.
          No one wrote about this.
    2. Uncle VasyaSayapin
      Uncle VasyaSayapin 30 March 2016 10: 55
      +1
      If it was a joke, then you had to at least put a smiley. And if you’re bullshit, then you were rightly bombarded.
  3. Igor39
    Igor39 30 March 2016 06: 30
    +2
    We are fine? In the State Duma discussed the issue of "mortgage for a child" is not why? Fertility is good in the southern regions.
  4. Dionis2019
    Dionis2019 30 March 2016 06: 32
    +9
    RUSSIAN !!! FILL AND BREED !!! GIVE A BILLION !!!
    1. PN
      PN 30 March 2016 06: 44
      +9
      I just gave two ...
      1. aba
        aba 30 March 2016 07: 46
        +5
        I'm for now ...

        If "bye", then we can hope for you! winked
      2. 1rl141
        1rl141 30 March 2016 15: 18
        +3
        Quote: PN
        I only gave two so far ..

        And what is there to sit at the computer? Take care of it! The country relies on you and trusts! Don’t look at me, I have three, I wipe my pants with a clear conscience at my computer ... See that we don’t blush for you!
    2. Uncle VasyaSayapin
      Uncle VasyaSayapin 30 March 2016 10: 58
      0
      In Russia, there are no technologies to feed so many people. Millions of 200 maximum, if meat is not removed from the diet. But without meat we degenerate into Indian trash.
  5. Nehist
    Nehist 30 March 2016 06: 33
    +3
    Gg, well, damn it! Yes, the birth rate increase due to migrants, are born here from neighboring countries and automatically Russian citizenship. But the Russian children themselves are not in a hurry to start, because we do not live but survive
    1. rx78
      rx78 30 March 2016 06: 59
      +13
      They survive in Nigeria or Bangladesh, there is natural trash and hellish hell. At the same time, the birth rate is the highest in the world. If it depends on the standard of living, so the higher it is, the fewer children. Once, career, creativity, personal life with over requests. Children are distracting.
    2. aba
      aba 30 March 2016 07: 24
      +6
      we do not live but survive

      That is, in your opinion, the higher the standard of living, then there are more children in the family ?!
      Quite right, but exactly the opposite! wink
    3. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 30 March 2016 10: 15
      +3
      If parents do not have Russian citizenship, then children do not receive citizenship. In our country, the right to soil applies only to persons whose parents are unknown (foundlings, etc.).
      1. Nehist
        Nehist 30 March 2016 13: 47
        +2
        Gg, you probably are not familiar with oriental mentality! For a good bakshish, the child will be quickly let down under point d) of Art. 12 FZ-62 of 31.05.02 Acquisition of citizenship of the Russian Federation by birth.
    4. andrey-ivanov
      andrey-ivanov 30 March 2016 10: 48
      +7
      Gg, well, damn it! Yes, the birth rate increase due to migrants, are born here from neighboring countries and automatically Russian citizenship. But the Russian children themselves are not in a hurry to start, because we do not live but survive

      Stop moaning. I am always amazed by people who cry that "now, everything is bad - there is not enough money, prices are high, life is hard", etc. But at the same time they have a house or an apartment (not a shed at all!), The children are shod and dressed, the car in the family (rather fresh), or even a couple. There is money for a gym and rest in China-Turkey-Egypt-Thailand, they buy gold trinkets and iPhones-iPads. But at the same time, constant whining about shitty life. There was trash in the 90s. And during the war, our grandfathers and grandmothers drank dashing. Now, don't ... warm up. In general, when was it easy in Russia?
  6. oldav
    oldav 30 March 2016 06: 39
    +2
    In fact, everything is not very good. The fact that the numbers are held is thanks to the North Caucasus and the adjoined Crimea. Urgent measures are needed. Such as; reduction of abortion (prohibition for nulliparous), propaganda of the family, social protection of children and mothers, ban on TNT.
    1. Nsk 54
      Nsk 54 30 March 2016 06: 45
      +2
      Soon there will be a failure.
      Table on 01.01.2016
      1. sa-zz
        sa-zz 30 March 2016 07: 01
        +4
        Quote: Nsk 54
        Soon there will be a failure.
        Table on 01.01.2016

        And what is indicated on this table?
        1. Nsk 54
          Nsk 54 30 March 2016 07: 10
          0
          Quote: sa-zz
          And what is indicated on this table?

          The age-sex pyramid of Russia on January 1, 2016.
          1. sa-zz
            sa-zz 30 March 2016 07: 16
            +6
            Quote: Nsk 54
            The age-sex pyramid of Russia on January 1, 2016.

            Hehe. Very informative answer.
            1. Days
              Days 30 March 2016 08: 50
              +5
              Here, in VO, there was also a detailed article about this.

              The wave of population decline due to the Great Patriotic War, superimposed on the wave of population decline due to the collapse of the Union, is now coming into its own. Children born at a minimum birth rate approach reproductive age, as a result, Russia will receive an automatic decline in fertility, the number of people will decrease.
              1. sa-zz
                sa-zz 30 March 2016 09: 29
                +1
                Quote: Dagen
                Children born at a minimum birth rate approach reproductive age, as a result, Russia will receive an automatic decline in fertility, the population will decrease

                Well, another matter. thank
        2. Polevik
          Polevik 30 March 2016 09: 50
          +2
          And what is indicated on this table?

          If I understood correctly, this is the number of people (in thousands) of a certain age in Russia as of 01.01.2016/15/20. It is disturbing that people of age, for example 2 years old (and 30 years old too), are almost 30 times less than 15 years old. That is, a certain decline in the birth rate is expected in a few years. On the other hand, there are 20% more newborns than the same 86 year olds. That will give an increase in fertility in 30+ years. In general, (other things being equal), the trend is positive. Although until the birth rate of XNUMX (the number of XNUMX year olds) is still "work and work." repeat
          PS Not special. My interpretation may not be correct.
    2. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid 30 March 2016 07: 06
      -1
      To your abortion ban, I would add laws that support single young mothers. It’s a pity not for adults. Children do not appear on their own.
      1. oldav
        oldav 30 March 2016 08: 15
        +6
        I don’t think that they need to be strongly supported, it is the family that needs to be developed and not single motherhood.
        1. Reptiloid
          Reptiloid 30 March 2016 08: 23
          +1
          And where are the fathers of those children? Why should these children be without support if the father abandoned them before delivery? Wait a minute, the women will come ---- they will write to you
          1. oldav
            oldav 30 March 2016 10: 47
            +2
            Fathers must be identified and judged. In general, it is a rarity when a pregnant woman is abandoned, often the girls fly by someone else. We need to learn from our smaller brothers with SeKav-za. There, the integrity of a girl before marriage is appreciated, and in our country as a passage yard.
            1. Reptiloid
              Reptiloid 30 March 2016 11: 35
              +1
              In short, you argue that the fault lies with the girl, and you don’t need to help, because even the mother and the child will suffer. And these are not only people, but also your compatriots. This is cruel of you .. With the present possibilities --- paternity it’s easy to confirm. And if you don’t know from whom --- it means they intimidated, afraid. That's.
              1. oldav
                oldav 30 March 2016 12: 26
                +1
                The blame is on everyone, but on the girls is special. Affordable girl badly affects the behavior of a guy. Or, in another way, accessible sexual intercourse provokes a guy to look for more and more new partners, while Nena is walking. And when he walks up, he will leave behind 2-3 single mothers with children who do not know their father. In religious families, guys try to create a family as soon as possible, not only for independence but also for constant intimate relationships.
                1. Cap.Morgan
                  Cap.Morgan 30 March 2016 17: 08
                  +4
                  Quote: oldav
                  The blame is on everyone, but on the girls is special. Affordable girl badly affects the behavior of a guy. Or, in another way, accessible sexual intercourse provokes a guy to look for more and more new partners, while Nena is walking. And when he walks up, he will leave behind 2-3 single mothers with children who do not know their father. In religious families, guys try to create a family as soon as possible, not only for independence but also for constant intimate relationships.

                  At the same time, religious ones run to the side.
                  The wife of the house sits wrapped in shawls with five children and horns clings to the ceiling, and the religious on the side planes ...
    3. Darkness
      Darkness 30 March 2016 07: 08
      +2
      Maybe women themselves will decide whether to give birth or not?
      Prohibitions, damn it ...
      1. oldav
        oldav 30 March 2016 08: 11
        +1
        That's right, let them decide to kill or not, the child did not like, killed, gave birth to another.
      2. Reptiloid
        Reptiloid 30 March 2016 08: 17
        -1
        I answered for OLDAV. But don’t you know that going to an abortion, a woman, a girl, for the most part, does it under the pressure of someone? Can you confront --- who is exerting this pressure? Especially on the young and lonely.
        1. oldav
          oldav 30 March 2016 10: 49
          +2
          Young and lonely need to take care of themselves before marriage and everything will be okay. And the pressure is exerted not by people but by imposed needs (leisure, clothes, cars, iPhones, etc.)
          1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
            Uncle VasyaSayapin 30 March 2016 11: 38
            +4
            You have an unusually adequate position. That's just the social security of mothers and children a little annoying me. I think social security should still be families. And I absolutely agree with the rest. Single and divorced mothers are the hole that sucks our demographics. And all the problems in the worldview are imposed needs and false statuses.
            1. Reptiloid
              Reptiloid 30 March 2016 12: 40
              -2
              Who gave the right to judge others?! Condemn the weaker and without the defense?
              So to yourself, family, do you want support, and more than without protection refuse?
              Where does such cruelty come from?

              Remember the words of JESUS!
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. oldav
                oldav 30 March 2016 13: 18
                0
                And you do not mind the "walking" children. Who grow up fatherless due to the fact that his mom got pleasure and couldn't marry a guy? Why do you only protect moms? A child in a family is better than without a father.
          2. Reptiloid
            Reptiloid 30 March 2016 12: 44
            +1
            Oldav, How did you find out about the needs of others?
            Why judge others?
            1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
              Uncle VasyaSayapin 30 March 2016 12: 51
              0
              A person writes about what he sees around him. And you, apparently, as they say, "make yourself celku". Like: "I don't see anything, I don't hear anything, I won't tell anyone."
            2. oldav
              oldav 30 March 2016 13: 22
              +1
              I know a lot of ladies who postponed childbirth just because they wanted to buy a car or go to a resort. In the best case, they managed to give birth to one by the age of 40, and in the worst they were left without children and without a family ..
    4. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 30 March 2016 10: 17
      +1
      In Ossetia, Adygea, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia, local peoples have not very high birth rates. Except, maybe, Karachais.
      1. oldav
        oldav 30 March 2016 10: 43
        +2
        Not high against the background of Chechens and Ingush, but high compared to Russians; moreover, there is less mortality and a longer life expectancy.
  7. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 30 March 2016 06: 41
    +13
    Fertility is affected not so much by the growth of well-being as by a generally accepted model of behavior. A child who has grown up in a family alone, having his own, is unlikely to insist on two or more children. There is a simple way to increase the birth rate - maternity capital. Suppose, for the second - half a million, for the third - a million, for the fourth - two, and so on. Yes, in the country tomorrow there will not be enough kindergartens, and the day after tomorrow - schools.
    But only on the condition that children are born in a family! Mothers of many children with promiscuous sex life - no indulgences. Society must move away from the "consumer" model, which assumes - to live for itself. And children are "troublesome", "expensive", and so on ... Children are happiness! This is the only thing that prolongs your existence even after your natural death.
    1. Fox
      Fox 30 March 2016 06: 52
      +16
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      A child who has grown up in a family alone, having his own, is unlikely to insist on two or more children.

      I am one of my parents. Now I have 4. What else am I doing wrong? winked
      1. Sergej1972
        Sergej1972 30 March 2016 10: 18
        +1
        And what is the percentage of people like you from the total number of births in one-child families? Surely at the level of statistical error.
    2. aba
      aba 30 March 2016 07: 26
      +3
      Yes, in the country tomorrow there will not be enough kindergartens, and the day after tomorrow - schools.

      You may be surprised, but today they are not doing well.
  8. 31rus2
    31rus2 30 March 2016 06: 42
    +4
    Dear, what nonsense is comparing everything and everyone with the West, why? Or is our development path Western? All that is needed and not needed is either compared or introduced from there. The West has already shown its true face, far from being democratic. Fertility must be compared with data from the countries of the World, not the EU or someone just profitable to show how much "we are already Europeans", but their articles and forecasts are not needed, we need our own smart long-term demographic policy, that's all
  9. Good cat
    Good cat 30 March 2016 06: 43
    +3
    Ban TNT really liked!
  10. Masya masya
    Masya masya 30 March 2016 06: 46
    +3
    Do not wait ...
  11. populist
    populist 30 March 2016 06: 51
    0

    The allegedly “unequivocally terrible” demography of Russia almost exactly corresponds to the indicators of the states of the European Union, and from 1975 onwards! Speech, in essence, is about an almost identical birth rate.

    The situation is extremely serious.
  12. strelets
    strelets 30 March 2016 06: 51
    +9
    Men on their salary are practically not able to support the whole family alone. Women are forced to work. Therefore, 3 or more children are often inadmissible luxury. But we cannot refuse labor resources in the person of women - there is no one to replace them yet. That's all.
    1. oldav
      oldav 30 March 2016 07: 02
      +9
      It’s all about needs, they are very large now, so the salary is not enough. I have Tajik neighbors, they have 7-8 children, are dressed modestly, eat modestly, the children have neither phones nor iPhones. Nevertheless, they are happy and value each other, and the children are much stronger and healthier than our children, who are alone in the family and who have everything.
      1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
        Uncle VasyaSayapin 30 March 2016 11: 46
        +3
        Yes it is. Now it’s hard to explain to the children why their friends are the only children in the family and they have separate rooms, and mine have one room for four. And two tables for three students.
        1. oldav
          oldav 30 March 2016 12: 30
          +1
          As experience shows, children where 2 or more children are more successful in life and achieve more than single-handed. I envy you so much, I have only one and will no longer. I already feel his selfishness.
          1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
            Uncle VasyaSayapin 30 March 2016 13: 38
            -1
            I have four egoists. lol Only their egoism is not very pronounced. And there is a habit of living together and taking into account the interests of others. The mother-in-law has three children - but her other two children have 1 of their own. And my other acquaintances from large families do not have two. They remember the crampedness and "offense" of childhood.
            The man has a higher commentary - 5. My wife in a social security agency somehow met a woman with 11 children. And in our village, the Sorokins live. But they have foster children.
            And the reasons for small families in my order of priority: 1) worldview (values)
            2) tightness and material restriction.
            Since childhood, I wanted to become a military, but it did not work out somehow. And what else can I do uniquely good for my homeland.
    2. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 30 March 2016 10: 23
      +1
      A significant, if not more, part of women works and will work, regardless of the salary and desire of men and regardless of the need of the national economy for labor resources. And not all men dream of a housewife. Do you think a female university teacher, scientist, or physician, or architect will agree to stay at home? Naturally, I do not mean the time of maternity leave.
      1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
        Uncle VasyaSayapin 30 March 2016 11: 49
        +1
        Maternity leave for four children is 12 years. What are you speaking about? And these years are youth. Such a trifle, you do not mean it, of course.
  13. samarin1969
    samarin1969 30 March 2016 06: 56
    +4
    No particular enthusiasm. Igor39 said the gist.
  14. aszzz888
    aszzz888 30 March 2016 07: 00
    +5
    Thus, we add that the picture with the birth rate in Russia is artificially “blackened” in the USA and Europe.

    Hello Oleg.
    There is nothing to be surprised at, they "blacken" EVERYTHING that is connected with Russia! This semi-declared war is in full swing! And in this war, the enemy is the enemy! Merikatos and Gayrope will never be our friends!
  15. eyed
    eyed 30 March 2016 07: 02
    +11
    That the birth rate in the country is low and there is no expectation of an increase in the future is an indisputable fact. Plus, ministers have started tricks with maternal capital: we canceled it or not indexed it. About the mortgage - so this is generally idiocy, it is better to keep grandmother in omeriki.
    Moreover, IVF, which is free almost everywhere, except for the Russian Federation, simply surprises with its "availability" and high cost. They gave everything to the merchants from gynecology.
    For what reason, hell knows, but the number of couples who are unable to conceive a child due to the infertility of one of the spouses is growing. They WANT but CAN'T! So give them opportunity and hope. No! And here, first of all, MONEY.
    And after that the ministers say - "give birth." They lie, brutes ...
    1. Kachesgm
      Kachesgm 30 March 2016 10: 11
      +1
      There are many couples who have infertility due to incompatibility of rhesus blood or other inconsistencies. Nature has laid down a mechanism for the prevention of reproduction of incompatible individuals. Accordingly, forced conception with the help of IVF raises questions ... Well, there is no institution of marriage and social obligations in nature ... Therefore, society should additionally investigate the influence of the institution of IVF on the development of humanity as a whole ... Although many cannot conceive a child due to the mistakes of "stormy youth ":(
      1. Sergej1972
        Sergej1972 30 March 2016 10: 25
        +1
        Well, do not get divorced due to the fact that the rhesus is incompatible? And if people love each other?
        1. Kachesgm
          Kachesgm 30 March 2016 12: 17
          0
          In Germany, there is a precedent-brother and sister loved each other and together created a family. So, it seems like a secular state, with seemingly complete tolerance for everything, the guy was imprisoned, and then when he got together again after trying, he tries to separate them again. I am not against love and humanity, but it must be monitored so that this incompatibility does not negatively affect the offspring, but in the whole society ... True, haven’t Google yet, are such studies being carried out?
    2. 1rl141
      1rl141 30 March 2016 20: 11
      0
      Quote: fake
      IVF, free almost everywhere, except for the Russian Federation, simply surprises with its "availability" and high cost.

      There is free IVF in the Russian Federation. They only get a free IVF with certain diagnoses. There is a list of diagnoses in which a woman is sent to a free IVF without any problems.
      My daughter couldn’t get pregnant in a natural way, after completing all the studies she was sent for free IVF. Now already in the 4th month.
      And if for the money, then it costs about 200 rubles.
  16. mamont5
    mamont5 30 March 2016 07: 15
    +2
    Quote: Igor39
    We are fine? In the State Duma discussed the issue of "mortgage for a child" is not why? Fertility is good in the southern regions.

    Not all is well with us, but ... in the "west" there is also no sugar. This is not a reason, of course, to trumpet fanfare, but you should not vilify yourself either. What the article is about.
    But the birth rate must be raised ...
  17. Riv
    Riv 30 March 2016 07: 34
    +4
    I xs, like these Kevins have, and I have four. Yes, and I myself am not going to die out yet.
  18. Alex von Dorn
    Alex von Dorn 30 March 2016 07: 55
    0
    The states will wear off, Russia will still show itself.
    1. bertgolz
      bertgolz 30 March 2016 16: 29
      0
      The only pity is to live in this beautiful time
      I don’t have to - neither to me nor to you
  19. olhon
    olhon 30 March 2016 08: 01
    0
    Quote: PN
    I just gave two ...
    like
  20. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 30 March 2016 08: 02
    +1
    The emphasis of American politicians and some experts on "reducing" the population of Russia ... looks more like a "complacency" than a truth.

    And this is probably the most obvious explanation for the conclusions of the American "experts".
  21. guzik007
    guzik007 30 March 2016 08: 34
    +2
    A population crisis, says columnist Mark Adomanis (Forbes), is a common phenomenon in Europe, including Russia. And do not inflate the situation in Russia: for example, in Italy things are worse.
    -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------

    --------------
    Very interesting! Since the situation in Russia is comparable with Europe, then you don’t have to worry? This despite the fact that from the media we know that Europe (white) is aging and dying out?
    Regarding the charts that have caused bewilderment above, I explain. The demographic failure that awaits us very soon is due to the fact that children born into the dashing birth rate 90s enter the fertile age (readily mature). And this failure will haunt the country for decades regularly, by inertia.
    Many factors influence the increase in fertility and all of them lie, as you know, in the social field. Oh no social housing money? To kindergartens and schools? And they will not be there, while Uncle Vova with royal generosity will forgive billions of dollars of debt to satellites, while forgetting that this money was once sucked out of our taxes, from our pockets. The Kremlin, it seems, is not catching up that when it comes to the future of the country, it is first of all necessary to patch up holes in your own pockets, and not to throw pies to a neighbor. Well, that is, if you think about the future. And now, judging by how feverishly is sucked out from the bowels for sale that which should rightfully belong not even to our children, but to grandchildren, it turns out that temporary workers are sitting in the Kremlin (after us at least a flood), that we live on credit. Debt to the next generation. They certainly won’t say thanks to us. And what will our era be called in 50-100 years? Age of total sale?
  22. Stas57
    Stas57 30 March 2016 09: 00
    +2
    in the classroom of a son with one child 4-5 people, the rest are all two, that's such a demography
    1. guzik007
      guzik007 31 March 2016 19: 46
      0
      in the classroom of a son with one child 4-5 people, the rest are all two, that's such a demography

      -----------------------
      Unfortunately, one class is not statistics yet.
  23. igorra
    igorra 30 March 2016 09: 06
    0
    Quote: aba
    That's right, but just as I read in an article about demography, that for simple reproduction of the population, each family should have more than two children. Each one!

    Two is to maintain the number, three must be given birth, then there will be an increase.
  24. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 30 March 2016 10: 03
    -1
    In addition to fertility, parents need to be healthy. As soon as the amount of alcohol consumed decreases, the birth rate itself will creep up.
    This is some kind of brain shift, since it’s Russian, you have to drink it and are still proud of the amount of alcohol you drink. But this was actually alien to the Slavs. Planted on vodka, like the natives in the era of geographical discoveries.
    I am not against alcohol at all, but a measure is needed in everything. Since even a medicine in case of an overdose turns into poison.
    By the way, on one of the New Years, after the New Year’s address, the GDP pointedly raised a glass .. not with champagne .. but with juice. The hint was think more than clear.
    1. Razvedka_Boem
      Razvedka_Boem April 5 2016 21: 38
      0
      What drunk minus me is interesting? ..)
  25. vch62388
    vch62388 30 March 2016 10: 12
    0
    You can, of course, beat me up, BUT ... Have you ever wondered if one child who has learned, is healthy, able to provide for his family with his work, and the previous generation will benefit his country an order of magnitude more than heels of degenerates born in a chronic family alcohol addicts. It may be wonderful CHILDREN, but how can they grow up without proper upbringing by family, school, and society? Do not you think that one full-fledged engineer-accountant-fitter-driver is much more valuable to society than three or four potential drug addicts?
    1. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid 30 March 2016 11: 46
      +2
      Not necessarily a drug addict. They may just be weak and sick. And parents will not be able to provide them with the necessary care. There is something in your mind, but you still need to think somehow. But it’s better after all 2 or 3. Healthy and smart.
    2. Uncle VasyaSayapin
      Uncle VasyaSayapin 30 March 2016 11: 57
      -2
      What nonsense are you writing! Addicts and alcoholics come from the same two-child families of the 70s, like normal people. Moreover, worthy people often came from large families, in contrast to single-parent families. Alcoholism and drug addiction are not from large families, but from heredity or lack of proper upbringing, and in one-child families there is also infantility and egocentrism.
  26. Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 30 March 2016 10: 15
    +5
    It is time in Russia to move on from the words of support for motherhood and childhood.
    Maternal capital is purely virtual support.
    We need to take an example, at least from Germany, where the child benefit is paid until he comes of age. And you can really support a child for this allowance ...
    1. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 30 March 2016 10: 28
      +2
      For residents of the village and small cities, depressed regions, this is by no means virtual support.
  27. Urgen
    Urgen 30 March 2016 11: 07
    +3
    I agree with many comments that living standards do not directly affect fertility. In the failure of the birth rate of the 90s. rather, uncertainty about the future plays a role. Those. there was no stability. And now the factor of depravity of the population with various benefits and the pursuit of the dollar (the ruble, the euro - underline the necessary) are playing. Selfishness - "you need to live for yourself", "get everything from life", etc. He himself was the same. Now there are two kids. Now I can't imagine life without them and I want more! smile It even becomes scary what will happen when the children grow up and become quiet again at home ...
    1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
      Uncle VasyaSayapin 30 March 2016 12: 02
      +1
      Everything is relative. It’s surprisingly quiet when there are only two out of four children at home. laughing
  28. koshmarik
    koshmarik 30 March 2016 12: 12
    +3
    We well know what task the owners set for the Baltic states, therefore 99% of their writings, by definition, are bullshit. And yet, the hour is not far off when same-sex, read childless, marriages in the EU will make themselves felt. After some time, some very prolific emigrants will remain in the EU countries. Adomantis, before writing about something, it would be nice to move the remaining convolutions.
  29. iouris
    iouris 30 March 2016 12: 31
    +2
    The author is engaged in propaganda, because no arguments were presented to refute the “theory of extinction”. Unfortunately, the statistics indicate a very difficult demographic situation. Perhaps the process of depopulation has become irreversible. Perhaps this is a "terrible military secret" since the government itself is working on it. After all, there were statements like: "Yes, we have a crisis. The budget is shrinking, but we will not feel it, since the population is dying out."
    In 1940, according to the forecast of Mendeleev, the population of Russia was to increase to 300 million people, but after 1917 there was a demographic failure.
    In 1945, the US ambassador to the USSR wrote an analytical note in which he concluded that the forces of the Russian people were irreversibly undermined by the war.
    In the late 1970s, the first post-war demographic collapse occurred.
    After the 1990s, there is another wave.
    At the same time, in the United States, population growth is a linear function of time, but this is also a problem, since the proportion of the "white" population is declining.
    1. hardroc
      hardroc 30 March 2016 13: 09
      +1
      Quote: iouris
      In 1945, the US ambassador to the USSR wrote an analytical note in which he concluded that the forces of the Russian people were irreversibly undermined by the war.

      There is a possibility that he was right.
  30. Hammer
    Hammer 30 March 2016 14: 37
    0
    Well, at least one good news for this shitty day!
  31. Damask
    Damask 30 March 2016 14: 52
    0
    If the government needs a population, it will support the birth rate by all means, but for now it doesn’t need it or just keeps a certain%
  32. Zomanus
    Zomanus 30 March 2016 15: 22
    +3
    I see the birthrate problem nowhere.
    Nowhere to spend ... conceive, nowhere to grow.
    Because not everyone can breed in rental housing.
    Not everyone has the opportunity to hump on a mortgage.
    And just those who are able to bring healthy offspring.
    Enable affordable social housing for all categories,
    and not just successful and well-paid.
    That people would clearly understand that in this apartment they can easily conceive and raise children.
    And that tomorrow the landlords will not come and throw them out on the street because of neighbors' complaints about the noise from the child.
    In the meantime, this will not happen, we can continue to hope that all these active and creative people will solve the demographic problem at the cost of their career and social freedom.
  33. Balagan
    Balagan 30 March 2016 17: 58
    0
    Articles about five years come across to me. There are certain pens. But he writes about demography realistically.
  34. Olegi1
    Olegi1 30 March 2016 23: 58
    0
    In the States, the population is really growing. I see myself that three or more children in a family are not uncommon. In our country, too, the plus trend is changing. Two friends have three, and one has four. My wife and I did not succeed, although we wanted to :( Only one daughter.
  35. Victor N
    Victor N 31 March 2016 17: 46
    +1
    A separate line should be given to the demography of the Russians.
    Why can not you personally support individual children, mothers, families? It is possible and necessary, but it cannot be state bodies. We need a private initiative, special funds led by famous people with impeccable recommendations. Everything can be organized within the framework of the law.
    For example: The curator of the Kostroma region (district, village), Professor I.I. Ivanov opens a personal account for Vanya Petrov and calls on his recommendations to help the boy get a special education. Who believes - lists his three rubles.
    Can.
    We need reliable information about those in need and a reliable manager of funds.
    Troublesome, but possible!
  36. red rocket
    red rocket 31 March 2016 20: 28
    0
    it's all about affordable housing
    1. bk316
      bk316 31 March 2016 22: 02
      +2
      Fully join.
      I received little and received a lot, and I have two children and my wife was not alone.

      It is possible to feed a child and two in every possible way, but buying a decent house for a family by a father, mother and two children in Moscow is practically impossible without help (relatives, the state or anyone else).

      In fact, this is my second claim to GDP (the first is why liberals are in the Kremlin and not in the Kolyma).
      Why not print money and throw it on the best infrastructure project for the people - "housing for free".

      True, I have a suspicion that the first is somehow connected with the second .....