The countries of the former USSR in terms of living standards. The standard of living in russia versus the countries of the former ussr and sev. Obligatory spending and their share in consumption

In the USSR, the standard of living was constantly changing. There were periods when the population was on the verge of poverty and hunger, but they were followed by times when Soviet citizens lived no worse than in developed Western countries.

The first years of Soviet power, the Bolsheviks tried to get out of the devastation that arose through their own fault. Khrushchev described this period as follows: “So we overthrew the monarchy, the bourgeoisie, we won our freedom, and people live worse than before. As a locksmith in Donbass before the revolution, I earned 40-45 rubles a month. Black bread cost 2 kopecks a pound (410 grams) and white bread 5 kopecks. Lard was sold at 22 kopecks a pound, an egg - a penny apiece. Good boots cost 6, on the strength of 7 rubles. And after the revolution, earnings dropped, and even very much, while prices rose a lot. "

Only by the mid-thirties, in the seventh year of industrialization, the USSR was able to reach a high level of industrial development and relatively stably provide citizens with essential goods. What is important - by this time the Soviet Union was the first among other countries to overcome unemployment.

Stalin's breakthrough

The main thing that Stalin did was to revive national production... On the eve of the Great Patriotic War, the USSR was the second state in the world in terms of gross industrial output, only slightly lagging behind the United States and significantly ahead of developed European countries.

After the end of the war, our state manages to overcome the devastation in a short time. Already in 1946, the wages of workers and engineers employed at enterprises and construction sites in the Urals, Siberia and the Far East increased by 20%. The salaries of citizens with secondary vocational and higher education, including doctors, teachers and researchers, will rise by the same amount.

The standard of living of the population of the USSR by 1953 - the time of Stalin's death - can be estimated based on materials from studies of the budgets of families of workers, employees and collective farmers, which were carried out by the Central Statistical Office (CSB). According to the CSO, the most well-to-do part of the population included employees of defense industry enterprises, design organizations, scientific institutions, university teachers, doctors, workers of artels and the military.

Of the listed groups highest income I visited the doctors: for each member of their families, on average, 800 rubles fell on average. The lowest income among categories of the urban population was among workers industrial enterprises- 525 a month for each family member, the peasants had such an income of 350 rubles. [C-BLOCK]

After the abolition of the rationing system, the government significantly reduced the prices of food in stores, including those that were not essential goods. For example, the cost of a cake has dropped from 30 to 3 rubles. The price tag on the collective farm markets has dropped more than three times.

Food was cheap in catering establishments. So, lunch in a student canteen, which included soup with meat, a second with meat, compote or tea with a bun, cost only 2 rubles. Moreover, there was always free bread on the tables. Since 1949, price reductions have become commonplace, averaging 20% ​​per year.

In 1953, the average salary in the USSR was 719 rubles, or $ 179. With the transfer to today's money - about 1600 - 1700 dollars.

Khrushchev thaw

After Khrushchev came to power, the standard of living of Soviet citizens continued to rise. In 1957, the salary of low-paid categories of workers and employees was increased, and from 1959 to 1965 the average salary also increased almost 1.5 times. In 1964, it was first introduced pension provision to collective farmers, tuition fees were also abolished. The authorities invest a lot in health care; at this time, there was an increase in the life expectancy of the population.

But the main thing that Khrushchev remembered was the massive construction of housing. For 1956-60, in albeit small-sized, but on the other hand own apartments more than 50 million citizens entered - almost a quarter of the population of the USSR. [C-BLOCK]

At the same time, by the beginning of the 60s, the state's resources for maintaining a favorable social policy began to dry out new round"Cold War" led to an increase in military spending, began to fail in the economy. Khrushchev's experiments in the national economy, which led to the outflow of part of the gold reserves from the country, were not in vain for the country either. In 1964, there was a tangible shortage of grain and the authorities were forced to buy grain abroad for the first time.

It is curious that it was during the Khrushchev era that Soviet underground millionaires flourished. Among them are Siegfried Gazenfranz and Isaac Singer, who made a fortune in the garment industry. The first bought a spacious house and hired a servant, the second loved to go out in restaurants and did not deny himself anything.

Brezhnev stagnation

The voluntaristic times of Khrushchev, who proposed to catch up and overtake America, have ended, the period of Brezhnev's stagnation has begun. And the life of Soviet residents stabilized. If we take into account the current human development index, the Soviet Union, according to its indicators, was one of the five most developed countries in the world.

Professor Sergei Lopatnikov, who lives in the United States, who works at the Center for Composite Materials at the University of Delaware, argued that the standard of living of Soviet people by the 80s was not only comparable with the American, but in some ways even surpassed the quality of life of 80% of Americans of that time.

In the Brezhnev era, a fertile time has come for Agriculture, oil and gas industry and rocket and space industry. The average salary in the country was 120-130 rubles. In the 1970s, it was possible to live in peace even on a student scholarship of 30-50 rubles. [C-BLOCK]

But in the country there were many categories of the population with an income above the average. So, an associate professor of the university received 250-300 rubles a month, the salary of metallurgists, miners, oil workers reached 500 rubles. Any worker could purchase goods in installments or on credit at a rate not exceeding 2%.

In the Brezhnev era, the opportunity to develop personal and subsidiary farms became available. "Personal economy is a common matter" - was the slogan at that time. The state bought surplus agricultural products through the consumer cooperation system from the population, while prices were 30-40% higher than those for purchases from collective and state farms.

During the 18-year period of Brezhnev's rule, about 1.6 billion square meters were built. m. of living space, where 162 million people have moved in. These were no longer small-sized Khrushchevs, but spacious and comfortable apartments.

On the eve of the crisis

By 1985, the USSR firmly held 1st place in Europe and 2nd in the world (after the USA) in terms of industrial and agricultural production. The average salary for 1985 in the RSFSR corresponded to 199 rubles, in the country - 150 rubles. Regular monthly expenses - payment for housing, food, transport and other necessary services - usually did not exceed 50% of income, which allowed Soviet citizens to seriously save money.

Food products in the late USSR were available to everyone: no more than 3 rubles. 50 kopecks cost a kilogram of meat, 16 kopecks - a loaf of white bread, about a ruble - a dozen eggs, 36 kopecks - a liter of milk, a bottle of vodka - 3 rubles 62 kopecks. [C-BLOCK]

The standard of living of the population remained consistently high, despite the fact that the first negative trends were already outlined in the economy. Andropov and Chernenko did not significantly affect the situation, although under Andropov there were attempts to infuse fresh blood into the socio-economic life of the country.

Gorbachev's perestroika, designed to transform the face of socialism, led to completely unpredictable results. With the inept actions of the administrative apparatus, the quality of life of citizens began to fall invariably. By the middle of 1990, it became clear that the socialist methods of conducting the national economy had outlived their usefulness: the country was on the verge of market reforms.

By the beginning of 1991, prices for food products, transport and public Utilities... Regular interruptions in the supply of the population began, which led to the tobacco, sugar and vodka crises. Many essential goods became available only with coupons. For the first time in a long time, the country faced the problem of queues.

Deficit state budget in other words, the excess of expenditures over revenues, according to various estimates, was from 20% to 30% of gross domestic product (GDP). Unemployment and racketeering have become commonplace. The country was smoothly sliding towards the redistribution of state property.

REFERENCE: In the 70s of the last century, according to UN reports, the USSR was among the top ten countries in the world in terms of living standards. Today, in such a UN rating, the Baltic states occupy places in the fourth-fifth tens, Belarus, Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Ukraine - in the seventh, Georgia and Armenia - in the eighth, Turkmenistan - in the ninth, Moldova - in the tenth, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan - in eleventh, Tajikistan - twelfth.

Maybe that's why, despite all the propaganda efforts, nostalgia for the USSR is growing even in the Baltic States?

It is officially believed that the "Soviet project" failed because the USSR collapsed. The logic is iron, but only for a poorly educated person. The state collapsed. Moreover, not by itself, but thanks to decades of work by much more powerful states. The project itself is just alive. Absolutely everyone adopted its individual elements. the developed countries the world. The largest growth tampa was also achieved by China, also grown according to the Soviet project. Vietnam is alive and well developing, Cuba with the legendary Castro is alive in spite of everything.

Not even nostalgia, but the popularity of the "Soviet project" not only does not decline, but is growing throughout the entire post-Soviet space. If not for the growth of such sentiments, no one would have adopted laws punishing Soviet awards and the Red Flag, would not rename streets and demolish monuments. The authorities of the newly-minted states are terrified of the memory of the best, cleaner and more honest years, to convulsions. Because the most thieving Minister of Fisheries of the USSR or the richest bride of the country Galina Brezhneva are beggars compared to the state of a simple district chief. tax office in Donetsk or Zaporozhye. I am already silent about the capital.

This means that the "Soviet project" is alive. To admit this is unprofitable for any government, except perhaps the Russian one. For the leadership of any post-Soviet state, this is a deadly trend. For Russia, it is rather the opposite. But Russia has lived by its own laws for thousands of years.

And it seems that the authorities began to realize that a return to many of the values ​​of the USSR is vital. This is what determines the heartbreaking squeal of all human rights defenders, liberals, democrats and their foreign sponsors. It is from here that Putin and Medvedev manage to simultaneously accuse both of the revival of Stalinism and the destruction of the memory of Stalin.

In fact, it is precisely the process of a normal and adequate assessment of the past that is underway. Recognition of really committed mistakes and crimes, on the one hand, and extraordinary achievements, now lost, on the other. After all, it's really real and no doubt great that under the leadership of Stalin we won the Patriotic War and created a nuclear shield, became world leaders in many respects, and even post-war cards were canceled a dozen years earlier than the British. Under Khrushchev, we were the first to go into space and moved tens of millions from dugouts and sheds to "Khrushchev" built according to the French project, under Brezhnev we entered the top ten countries in the world with the highest living standards.

This means that the "Soviet project" is not a border on the map, a country that did not disintegrate just twenty years ago. The "Soviet project" is not the charter of the CPSU, not the works of Lenin and Stalin, not the speeches of Khrushchev and Brezhnev. This is not the popularity of the Marxist-Leninist ideology (the majority of them do not like them), but something completely different. This is something that lives in memory, excites hearts, excites minds and feelings and does not want to die, no matter how rush to bury it, the "judges of time."

This “something” is the craving of people for lost unity, for lost values ​​of moral and ethical nature, which united and rallied people, even without being spelled out in the charter of the CPSU or in the newspaper Pravda (and sometimes united - and contrary to what was prescribed). This is a desire for ownership of interests. ordinary people interests of the country. This is a craving, in the end, for completely material achievements: those who believe that the USSR, at least in the so-called era of developed socialism, was inhabited by hungry, beggars, ragged, downtrodden, illiterate, unspiritual parents of street children, whom (both children and parents) were now and then mercilessly put under a knife, pistol, machine gun, explosives, I advise you to read and think more and watch more modern news releases, films and programs, where all of the above is just present in abundance.

None of Stalin's innocent victims or victims of political repression of the entire Soviet period can be compared with how many people were killed in the vastness of the collapsing USSR to this day. After all, Chechnya is not an invention of Yeltsin or Berezovsky. And Dudayev is nothing more than a puppet. The same as the much smarter Professor Khasbulatov, the only Chechen who reached such heights and betrayed everyone and everything. From the USSR to their fellow tribesmen. If they were not so different, they would have been born as a result of the collapse of the USSR. Tens of millions killed, died of hunger and poverty, without medical and social assistance.

Yes, take any Country. From impoverished Georgia to "prosperous" EU and NATO members in the Baltics. For 20 independent years, the population has decreased by 20-35%. What famine and thirty-seventh year compares to this? The population of Ukraine has decreased by a third. This is 15-17 million people! And after all, for the state, all these people are dead (even if physically someone lives safely abroad). That's all, this is already a cut off slice.

In other words, the current popularity of the "Soviet project" is a desire to return not the USSR in its former form (this is simply impossible), but something truly good, high and valuable that was achieved in the USSR, but then destroyed with the same fury with which the Bolsheviks themselves at one time destroyed the achievements of the Russian Empire.

A lot of letters!
Since a person's brains have been beaten off by propaganda, I found it useful to return to the topic.

Before comparing, I would like to point out one extremely significant circumstance that the elves are unable to comprehend categorically. The USSR only as a result of the German attack lost about a third of its national wealth in 1941-1945. In material terms, this is the following:
On the eve of the Patriotic War, the regions of the USSR that were under temporary occupation occupied a significant proportion of the entire territory of the USSR: in the population - 45%, in the gross industrial output - 33, in sown areas - 47, in livestock (translated into large cattle) - 45 and in length railway tracks - 55 %.

The German fascist invaders and their accomplices burned and destroyed 1,710 cities and towns, more than 70,000 villages, 1.5 million buildings and structures were completely or partially destroyed. About 25 million people lost their homes.

Also destroyed and destroyed 31,850 industrial enterprises (of which machine-building and metallurgical enterprises played a particularly important role, giving up to 60% of the gross pre-war product), not counting small enterprises and workshops, 1,876 state farms, 2,890 machine and tractor stations, 98,000 collective farms , 216 700 shops, canteens, restaurants and others trade enterprises, 4,100 railway stations, 36,000 post and telegraph offices, telephone exchanges, radio stations and other communications enterprises, 6,000 hospitals, 33,000 polyclinics, dispensaries and outpatient clinics, 976 sanatoriums and 656 rest homes, 82,000 primary and secondary schools, 1,520 special educational institutions - technical schools, 334 higher educational institutions, 605 research institutes and other scientific institutions, 427 museums, 43,000 public libraries and 167 theaters.

Destroyed, destroyed or kidnapped by the German invaders and their accomplices on the territory of the USSR, which was subjected to occupation, 175 thousand metal-cutting machines, 34 thousand hammers and presses, 2,700 cutting machines, 15 thousand jackhammers, 5 million chums of power plants, 62 blast furnaces , 213 open-hearth furnaces, 45 thousand looms and 3 million spinning spindles. Material damage was inflicted by the most valuable basic industrial funds THE USSR.

Of the 122 thousand km of railway track that existed before the war on the territory of the USSR, which was subjected to occupation, 65 thousand km were destroyed and plundered by the invaders. 15 800 steam locomotives and 428 000 cars were damaged. The invaders destroyed, sunk and seized 4,280 passenger, cargo and tugboats of river transport and ships of the technical auxiliary fleet and 4,029 non-self-propelled ships. Out of 26 thousand railway bridges, 13 thousand were destroyed. All 2,078 thousand km of wires of telegraph and telephone lines that were available in the occupied regions of the USSR were destroyed or stolen by the German invaders.

The housing stock of the population of the USSR was subjected to barbaric destruction by explosions and arson. Of the 2,567 thousand residential buildings in the cities of the USSR that were subjected to occupation, 1,209 thousand houses were destroyed and destroyed, and in terms of the size of the residential area, this number of houses accounted for more than 50% of the entire urban residential area of ​​these cities. Out of 12 million residential buildings rural population areas of the USSR that were under occupation, 3.5 million residential buildings were destroyed and destroyed by the German occupiers.
There was nothing close in the United States. On the contrary, the US has doubled its GDP due to the war.

It is clear that in the inflamed mind of the elves, these losses should have been restored by themselves and immediately. However, it must be the same: 24 years have passed since the beginning of perestroika, and the country has not restored even the 1985 level in terms of a single vital indicator ...
Therefore, when we take the USSR in 1980 as a comparison base, it should be remembered that 35 years have passed since the end of the war this year - just ten years more than since the beginning of the "outstanding democratic transformations."

The second point to keep in mind is the difference in the structure of income in the USSR and the USA.

Based on this distribution, the average annual income American family is about $ 50,000 today.
We see, however, that this distribution has two distinct humps: the "lower class" with incomes less than 100,000 and the "upper class" with incomes over 100,000. The "upper class" makes up approximately 13% of the population. The distribution of income in the USSR was of a different nature: there was no “upper class” in the USSR, and the share of high-income families was steadily and rapidly decreasing.

Meanwhile, the presence of a fairly massive "upper class" in the United States significantly distorts the idea of ​​the real standard of living in the United States. First, it is a class more visible to tourists who rarely visit relatively poorer areas. It is this middle class possesses the most "noticeable" housing and cars, and, most importantly, this class includes people of approximately the same stratum who relatively often traveled abroad in the USSR, but due to the absence of such a stratum in the USSR, their income was rather comparable to that middle-lower class USA. This specificity is emphasized by the huge difference in decile ratio(relative income of the richest 10% to the poorest 10%) USA and the USSR.

Bearing this in mind, it would be more correct to compare the standard of living of the Soviet middle-income family with the standard of living of the American middle-lower-income family. It is not difficult to calculate that the average annual income per family, after subtracting the "top peak" of the distribution, in the United States does not actually exceed $ 40,000.

It is with this figure that we must compare the standard of living of the average Soviet family, which in 1980 received, as you know, with two workers about 340 rubles a month (the average salary is 170 rubles a month for a worker), or, exactly, about 4000 rubles in year. That is, at par in 2007-2008, the income of the average American family, expressed in dollars, is just 10 times higher than the nominal income of the average Soviet family in 1980.

This nominal comparison, however, must be complemented by an analysis of the comparative real purchasing power of the modern dollar and the Soviet ruble of 1980, specifically in terms of household consumption.
Household comparison purchasing power ruble and dollar.

Obligatory spending and their share in consumption.

The most important component of the comparison is the mandatory spending, which cannot be eliminated or significantly reduced. I classify four categories of expenses as compulsory spending:

1. Housing costs

2. Compulsory transport costs

3. Food costs

4. Clothing costs

The first three categories are most easily compared, since they do not depend on the climate and are "everyday". The cost of clothing is close to the cost of durable items, since despite the relatively high “one-time” price, clothing is consumed for a long time and its weight in everyday spending is relatively low.

This also applies to goods such as televisions or furniture: their relatively high one-time price is spread over long periods of time - over the depreciation time, which for televisions, for example, is calculated in years, and for furniture, decades. Therefore, we will limit ourselves to comparing just the basic, everyday costs that make up the lion's share of the compulsory consumption.

Lodging

The price of housing in the USSR. 1980 Rent.

1. The rent for a standard two-room "state" apartment in Moscow was 12.5 rubles per month.

2. The price of the phone is 4 rubles. per month.

3. Average price of electricity - 0.02 rubles. per kilowatt hour

4. Gas - unlimited use - 2 rubles per month

5. Heating - 2 rubles per month.

Home price in the USA. year 2009. Rent.

1. The price of renting a "1-bed" apartment is not less than $ 700 outside large cities. The popular site www.realtor.com in Alexandria (a suburb of Washington DC) gives a minimum price of $ 900 for an apartment of 590 square feet (less than 50 square meters). In the range of up to $ 1000, only 15 proposals were found for an approximately one million suburb.
http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Alexandria_VA/beds-1/baths-1/price-na-1000/type-rentals?sby=1

2. The price of a landline phone is $ 36 per month

3. Price of water - $ 30-50 depending on consumption

4. Electricity price - average for the USA - $ 0.11 per kilowatt-hour

5. Gas - depends on consumption. I personally, however, paid $ 360 for a house in the winter for 3 months, that is, about $ 120 a month. In fact, this is also the price of heating and hot water.
Housing conversion factor:

Total housing costs in the USSR for two-room apartment- about 25 rubles a month.

The total cost of housing in the United States for an equivalent "1-bed" apartment is about $ 1,000 per month.

So the conversion factor is 1000: 25 = 40. That is, for housing, the purchasing power of the Soviet ruble is approximately 40 modern dollars.

Transport.

The need to account for transport as a mandatory expense is associated with simple fact: to get income, you need to get to work at least.
Again, here we are faced with a fundamentally different consumption structure.

In the United States, public transport is practically non-existent, with the exception of large cities. Whereas work is often removed from the place of residence, not a dozen, or even tens of miles. Therefore, we turn first of all to a comparison of transport costs in large cities.

Moscow 1980. The price of a single travel pass in Moscow was 3 rubles per month for all types of transport.

New York 2009. There is no trolleybus or tramway in New York. Bus routes are limited to transporting passengers to metro stations. As far as I know, there are no routes independent of the metro. The monthly metro and bus pass costs $ 80.

The average mileage of a car in the United States is estimated at 12.5 thousand miles per year.
Almost complete depreciation of the car is carried out after reaching about 100-120 thousand miles. That is, we can assume that the cost of a car is amortized in about 10 years. Taking into account the average car price of $ 20,000, the depreciation price is $ 2,000 per year. To this price should be added the price of gasoline. With a fuel consumption per gallon per 30 miles (on the highway), which is typical for 4-cylinder cars of the middle and lower classes, the annual gasoline consumption is 12,500: 30 = 416 gallons of gasoline. At $ 2 per gallon, the annual cost is $ 832. Total monthly expense for depreciation and gasoline is $ 236, to which more should be added compulsory insurance, driving without which is punishable by law. The price of the minimum insurance (one way - that is, covering the costs of the other party only) is $ 60 per month. In total, the minimum transportation cost per person in the case of using the machine is approximately $ 300 per month.

Conversion factor for transport:

Thus, the "transport purchasing power" of the Soviet ruble is approximately 30 to 100 times higher than the purchasing power of the modern dollar.

Nutrition.

Nutritional comparisons are more difficult due to significantly different eating styles. Two types of comparison are possible: for the price of lunch in a public catering in the USSR with mass chains in the USA and for the most common products.

A one-time meal in the cheapest mass chain of the USA "McDonald's" in the form of a sandwich with salad, a cutlet, fried fries and a glass of "soda", that is, sparkling water, is $ 6-7.

A three-course meal per meal: borscht, meat in a pot and salad, plus a glass of coffee or tea, cost 0.60 rubles in an average Soviet canteen. The minimum price for a full lunch: soup, cutlet with mashed potatoes or buckwheat porridge - 0.32 rubles.

Big Mac coefficient: Thus, the Big Mac coefficient was: one Soviet ruble to 10-20 modern US dollars.

The second possible way of comparison is by the price of individual products.

Potato coefficient: The price of potatoes in the USSR in 1980 was 0.1 rubles. The price of potatoes in the USA in 2008 is $ 0.5-0.9 per pound or $ 1-2 per kg. The potato coefficient is 10-20.

Coefficient for meat. Since in some years in the USSR there was a shortage of meat at half the store price, but on the market meat was always at a price of 4-6 rubles per kg versus $ 8-15 per kilogram in the USA today, the coefficient for meat can be estimated with a guarantee as 2-4 (two to four modern dollars for 1 Soviet ruble)

Bread coefficient. The price of a loaf of white bread weighing 450 grams in the SSR was 0.13 rubles. The price of an equivalent loaf of bread in the US today is $ 1.5-3. The conversion factor is therefore 10-20

The third way to recalculate is the cost of food per family per month.

Our family consistently spent 60 rubles a month on a person's food (180 rubles for three)

An American family of three spends about $ 800-900 on food - that is, $ 250-300 for a non-person. Accordingly, according to this criterion, we can assume that 1 Soviet ruble was equal to about 5 modern American dollars.

Cloth.

The ratio of the purchasing power of the Soviet ruble to clothing is also very difficult. However, in the main areas, you can make sure that the conversion factor for shoes is about 3-4 - that is, one Soviet ruble - 3-4 modern dollars (for shoes of comparable quality), with the exception of women's boots, where the same coefficient is again 10 (the price of women's winter insulated boots in the USA is 500-700 - dollars)

At the same time, for a number of types of clothing - men's coats, jackets and suits of equal quality, this is about 3-4.

Conclusions.

Thus, the purchasing power of the Soviet ruble is different types goods and services ranges from 3-4 to 100 modern dollars for the Soviet ruble.

Given the different weight different types consumption, we can calculate that the Soviet ruble of 1980 is on average equal to 10 modern American dollars and, therefore, the life of an American today, BUT NOT INCLUDING IN THE HIGHEST INCOME GROUP, is comparable in quality to the life of an average inhabitant of the USSR in 1980.

Thus, the apparent difference between the standard of living in the USA and the USSR is connected exclusively with the inappropriate comparison of the life of an average SOVIET PERSON WITH THE STANDARD OF LIFE OF AMERICANS IN THE HIGHER INCOME GROUP AND WITH A MISCONCIDENCE OF THE PRIORITY FOR PEOPLE WITH A HIGHER PAYMENT IN THE USSR PAYMENT income group (so, for example, the average salary in science in 1980 was in fourth place after the construction of transport and industry), while in the United States the highest income group is largely composed of people with higher education.

In other words, workers in the USSR lived NOT WORSE, or even better, than similar workers in the United States, while the intelligentsia in the USSR, unlike the United States, did not fall into the highest income group.

In fairness, it should be noted that this state of affairs is another "achievement" of Khrushchev and Brezhnev. So, under Stalin, even during the war, the average salary of engineers was 2.6 times higher than the salary of workers, and the salaries of the teaching staff were up to 6-7 times higher. Stalin's attitude to the intelligentsia can be judged by the academic and professorial dachas on Sokolinaya Gora, Mozzhinka, Serebryany Bor, Peredelkino, Klyazma and other similar places, the price of which today reaches MILLION DOLLARS - which no American professors dreamed of.

This is real, not elven, reality.

This does not mean that there were no problems in the USSR. But the very course of perestroika showed that they were minimal. For the notorious deficit today DUE TO INCREASING PRICES in the Russian Federation has disappeared, despite the fact that the consumption of people has reduced absolutely in all respects, and, for example, for meat - by almost half. Except maybe cars.

Due to the obviousness of the data presented, no one except absolutely incomprehensible comrades did not dare to refute them. The only housing addition that needs to be done is as follows. Two people made the following statement: in the United States, "the majority of the population owns the houses," and the young do not live with their parents.

On the first thesis, I would like to remind you of the famous statement of F. Engels: "If a shoe brush is classified as a mammal, its mammary glands will not grow from this."

Why? - Yes, because there are very few homeowners in the United States. More precisely, it is believed that 66% "own" houses (the rest still rent housing). In fact, they don't own anything. The vast majority of them "bought" houses on credit, on a mortgage. That is, in fact, the BANKS own the houses, from which the American owners took the money for RENT. In reality, the loan costs about 7-8% of the value of the house and is taken for a period of 30 years. This means that during the repayment of the loan, the person pays two or two and a half more to the bank for each dollar taken. That is, 2/3 of his payments are net rent. At the same time, there are two additional circumstances: the first and very important one is that since the “tenant of money” is called the “owner of the home”, he, unlike the tenant of housing, bears full responsibility for the condition of the house. The roof is leaking - his responsibility, the toilet is broken - the same. When renting, the price of this is included in the rental price. Here it is simply paid in a different way as it becomes available, more precisely, as a rule, in the form of insurance, which is paid to the insurance company. This is a premium to the real owner of the home - the bank - which, thereby, relieves itself of all worries about the safety of his home.

The second feature is that loan payments are distributed in a very special way. For the first five years, the "tenant of money" pays the bank only and exclusively interest. Absolutely everything goes to pay off the very 2/3 of the amount that the bank should receive in the form of a premium. Only after five years, some, minimal, deductions begin on the account of the main part of the loan, and only at the end of the term, the main payments go to repay the loan. What does this mean? - It means that for the first five years a person is ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY a TENANT OF HOUSING AT THE BANK with the responsibility entrusted to him to monitor his condition.

And the funny thing is that these five years are just close to the average time of owning this house. Usually, the average American, in connection with a job change, is forced to move to a new place of residence in five to seven years. As a result, this is exactly the same lease, only in "profile".
There is an important third circumstance: What, as a result, - if the loan is fully paid off - remains in the hands of the owner? - Answer: the owner is left with an almost completely depreciated house, subject to at least overhaul, the cost of which is comparable to the cost of new housing.

In other words, "owning a home" is almost a pure wiring.

As, by the way, and the ownership of a car, the loan for which is issued for five years. At the same time, in five years the car is depreciated by at least 75% with medium-high mileage.

It is clear that the proud name "owner" caresses the soul, but has practically nothing to do with reality.

The second remark is, of course, the notorious deficit, which was in the USSR and which is not in the United States.
Although this is essentially incorrect, since in 1980, products, and everything else, could be bought completely freely on the market, but people DIDN'T WANT this, since they were looking for everything in stores according to the state appointed, and not market price, there is also a more important misunderstanding of this issue.
Namely: a shortage on store shelves is inconvenient, but does not mean POVERTY in the sense of low consumption. In contrast, full counters are convenient, but don't mean wealth at all.

The real measure is actual consumption, not the type of shelves.

So: for all the main types of products (with the possible exception of cars), first of all for the quality of food, consumption in NEW RUSSIA DECLINED in comparison with the USSR. Even the reformers do not deny this. And this means that DE FACTO today the people in Russia - with full shelves - are poorer than they were under the USSR in conditions of deficit. The absolute maximum consumption was reached in 1985.

This is not an excuse for scarcity, of course. But, this is a clear indication that scarcity and wealth - that is, the standard of living - are things that lie in qualitatively different planes.

This applies not only to the comparison of the USSR and the Russian Federation, but also to the comparison of the USA and the USSR. Full shelves in the US do not mean at all that the consumption level of the bulk of the US population is higher than that of the bulk of the USSR in 1980.

An attempt to present the matter in such a way that a deficit, they say, is evidence of poverty, and the absence of a deficit = a high standard of living is as much a trick as the statement that mortgage tenants are its real owners.

The third type of comment is most interesting: well, you proved that in terms of meeting basic needs, we see that the average citizen of the USSR lived at least no worse than the average citizen of the United States (with the exception of the "upper class"), but the standard of living is largely determined by just "luxury". That which a person can afford in excess of basic needs.

As we have seen, taking into account the proportionality in terms of basic costs, the average income per family of a Soviet person in 1980 is approximately equal to income the average American in 2008 (excluding the American "upper class"). Consequently, “free balances are also approximately proportional and it is possible to compare directly the conversion factors for individual forms of applications of this balance.

And here we are faced with such striking differences in the structure of consumption that only one conclusion can be drawn: in all areas of human free development - and these are circles for children, theaters, conservatories, cinema, books, recreation, the ruble was almost infinitely more significant than the dollar.

So, for example, it is absolutely impossible to compare absolutely free and exceptionally high-quality Soviet university education with paid and very expensive higher education in the United States of actually masterful level. How many times is the ruble higher than the dollar in higher education, if a year in a very average university in the United States costs $ 30,000 (course 150 thousand), in prestigious universities in 60,000 and more (course - $ 250,000-300,000) - and this is without taking into account housing costs , while education in Soviet universities was not only free, but there was also a scholarship in the amount of 40-45 rubles and a place in a hostel cost about 3-5 rubles a month?

How can you compare children's education, if a weekly specialized summer camp, say, with "advanced study of mathematics" costs an American about $ 1000, while annual classes in any circle or any number of circles in the Houses (Palace) of pioneers, in the Houses of Culture were not worth at all nothing?

The circulation of popular books in the USSR was in the hundreds of thousands, which exceeds the typical circulation in the United States by tens of times. Nevertheless, in the 1980s, there was a shortage of fiction in the USSR. The reason for the deficit was fabulous low prices on books. A rare book cost more than 2 rubles. In the US, the price of books of similar quality is tens of dollars.

With scientific and technical literature, which in the USSR was a huge abundance - both domestic and translated, the coefficient is even higher. Whereas in the USSR the price of such books rarely exceeded 3 rubles (the main price range is 1.50-2.50), literature of a similar class in the United States costs tens and often hundreds of dollars.
In other words, everything connected with MAN's SELF-IMPROVEMENT in the USSR was TENS, if not hundreds of times cheaper and, therefore, more accessible.

Morale: Coefficient of at least 20.

But there is an objective point, according to which the USSR definitely "lost" to the United States in terms of the coefficient - these are items ... let's say, not essential.

Here, it is very likely that the conversion factor is approximately equal to 1-2: one Soviet ruble of 1980 for this part is equal to approximately 1-2 modern dollars. Approximately the same coefficient, according to my observations, is true for some types of clothing and footwear. In other words, non-basic necessities cost a Soviet person in relation to wages five to ten times more than they cost a modern American.

Taking into account the dollar inflation over the past 30 years, it is likely that $ 1 in 1980 in purchasing power for this category of consumption was indeed equal to 4-5 rubles in 1980, which roughly corresponds to the price of the black market at that time.

But this course was determined solely by the fact that the interests of citizens traveling abroad were just focused exclusively on this group of goods - they did not have to rent apartments, and service cars, etc.
As a result, it led to an "optical illusion" regarding the real value of the ruble in the full range of consumption. Even the fact that, FOR SAVING money, Soviet citizens brought FOOD with them to the west, which directly testified to its significantly lower cost in the USSR, could not change this absolutely false impression, which has survived to this day among citizens of the orange-like orientation of illiteracy.

General conclusion:

Personality development in the USSR was one and a half to two orders of magnitude cheaper than personality development in the United States today, while "materialism" - that is, optional consumption - in the United States costs five to 10 times less in relation to income than it cost the inhabitants of the USSR.

IN OTHER WORDS: TO BE IN THE USSR WAS 50-100 TIMES CHEAPER THAN IN THE USA TODAY. HAVE (over-consume) TODAY CHEAPER IN THE USA 5-10 TIMES THAN IN THE USSR IN 1980.

WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT, EVERYONE CHOOSES FOR ITSELF.

"... According to statistics on per capita income in the 80s, according to various estimates, the USSR lagged behind the United States by 2 times, but lagged behind Italy quite insignificantly. In comparison with Italy, the difference in the level of consumption was, at most, more beautiful windows of city shops, but the living standard of the overwhelming majority of the population in the USSR was no lower than in Italy, and the "socialist" Czechs certainly lived much better than the "capitalist" Italians.

Comparison based on natural indicators is more adequate. In this case, UN statistics, for example, reveal that the Soviet Union was in the top ten countries in terms of food quality .... "

Table 4. Comparison of indicators economic development USSR and USA in 1987 (data from the American reference book Soviet Economic Structura and Performance: pay attention to the spread of nominal figures in comparison with the upper table, but keeping the relative figures)
1987 indicators
USSR USSR

1 GDP $ 2375 billion $ 4436 billion

2 GDP per capita $ 8363 $ 18180.

3 Grain production 211 million tons 281 million tons.

4 Milk production 103 million tons 65 million tons.

5Production of potatoes 76 million tons 16 million tons.

6 Oil production 11.9 million barrels / day 8.3 million barrels / day

7 Gas production 25.7 trillion cubic meters feet 17.1 trillion. cubic feet

8 Electricity generation 1,665 billion kWh 2,747 billion kWh

9 Coal production 517 million tons 760 million tons

10Pig iron production 162 million tons 81 million tons

11Cement production 128 million tons. 63.9 million tons

12Aluminum production 3.0 million tons. 3.3 million tons

13 Copper production - 1.0 million tons. 1.6 million tons

14 Extraction of iron ore 114 million tons. 44 million tons

15Production of plastics 6 million tons. 19 million tons

16 Bauxite production 7.7 million tons. 0.5 million tons

17 Vehicle production 1.3 mln. 7.1 million pieces

18 Truck production 0.9 mln. 3.8 million pcs.

19 Housing construction 129 million sq ft 224 million sq ft.

20 Gold production 10.6 MtOz 5.0 MtOz.

In general, objective statistics indicate that the Soviet Union achieved a high level of well-being, quite comparable to that of the Western countries. The lag in the beauty of shop windows and in the consumption of prestigious goods and services (which, according to the purposeful policy of the leadership, should have been increased only after the basic prosperity for all, already provided by the economy of the USSR) should hardly have been a reason for the liquidation of an economy that had achieved such successes.

And here is the situation here.
http://www.rb.ru/topstory/economics/...20/121547.html

Bloomberg has released a list of the most expensive cities in the world, based on data from the largest Swiss bank UBS. Experts also separately compared the incomes of people from different cities with the average salary of residents of the most expensive US metropolis - New York. As it turned out, the Russian capital is far from the leaders.

Lists of the most expensive cities in the world are regularly compiled by various agencies. At the same time, everyone has different methods. Moscow is often ranked first or second in the world as the most expensive city for foreigners to live in. At the same time, experts argue that the high cost of living for foreigners does not affect ordinary Muscovites. After all, ordinary residents of the capital do not visit restaurants and boutiques, where wealthy expats from Western countries go.

The research "Prices and Earnings" by the investment bank UBS, released yesterday, is based on a comparison of living standards in the world's largest metropolitan areas by 122 positions. Read more about UBS rating parameters in add. material. The original text of the study can be found here.

Copenhagen, Oslo and Zurich are among the top three cities in terms of wages (before taxes). In Copenhagen, local workers pay 40.9% more than New York. In the Norwegian capital - by 39.1% compared to New York, in Zurich - by 30%.

New York itself has moved up the list from 5th to 13th over the past two years. He was outstripped by several cities of the European Union.

Moscow is in 48th place out of 70 in terms of salaries. For a month of work, Muscovites receive four times less from the usual salary of a New Yorker. According to Rosstat, the average gross salary in Moscow is just over 20,000 a month.

The Indonesians live the worst life. Salaries in Jakarta are only 6.5% of New York's.

Where prices are higher

As you know, prices for products and services that make up the subsistence level are an important component of well-being.

Oslo is still the "gold" winner here. Prices in this city are 44.2% higher than in New York. The "Silver" and "Bronze" winners have changed places: Copenhagen is the second this time, and London is the third.

New York, considered by many to be one of the most expensive cities on the planet, dropped from seventh to eighteenth.

The capital was overtaken by many developed cities: for example, Paris, New York and Berlin. But Moscow is ahead of Hong Kong, Dubai and Rio de Janeiro.

The cities of Asia, Africa and Latin America... The cheapest place for a consumer is to live in the capital of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. Prices here are 40.5% lower than in New York.

Purchasing power level

The value of a salary is not only in its size, but in what it can buy with it. Copenhagen, Zurich and Berlin became the leaders in purchasing power (New York ranked 22nd). For example, in Copenhagen you can afford 37.4% more on a standard salary than in New York.

Moscow in terms of purchasing power dropped from 46th to 55th place, behind Istanbul, Tallinn, Riga, Budapest.

But comparative analysis Americans and Russians

Distribution of income in Russia and the USA

Publications

Igor Berezin
Lead Consultant Romir
President of the Guild of Marketers

Only Gd knows the true picture of the distribution of income in any country. Statistics, research and analytics can only try to get closer to this elusive reality. Paint a picture that "looks like the truth."

They often contrast “official statistics” with “expert assessments”. Although, in fact, "expert assessments" are made on the basis of primarily "official statistics" and data from "independent research". And “official statistics” is obtained from the “expert assessment” of accounting data, sample surveys and methods of mathematical modeling, as well as calculations in conditions of insufficient and inaccurate information by specialists of statistical departments.

The US population is 275 million (2005). These are 115 million households and families. A family, a household can also consist of one person. The average household size in the United States is 2.4 people. Translated into an understandable language (so as not to get 1.5 diggers) per 100 households - 240 people. In the middle of the 19th century there were 450. Before World War II - 350.

The aggregate income of Americans in 2005 was 9 trillion (this is such a number with 12 zeros) US dollars. This nine trillion is 74% of US GDP. The average monetary income (not to be confused with GDP) per person is $ 32,900 per year. One household - $ 78,700. Or in terms of ranges - $ 70-90 thousand per year. Looking ahead, I will note that just over 10% of Americans in the core of the middle class have just such an income.

Americans have to make numerous voluntary-compulsory contributions from their cash income, which reduce the amount available by about a third. So consumer spending per household is just over $ 50,000 per year. And the total cost is about $ 6 trillion. It is the largest consumer market in the world. Till. Until the European Union turned into a single state. And while China has not implemented its economic potential... Americans practically do not save. Those. of course, there are many Americans who make savings, but there are many more who are building up debt or cutting savings. So the total savings balance is +/- 2% of total income. At the same time, both the authorities and American companies are making a lot of efforts to ensure that Americans do not save, because this reduces current consumption, and a decrease in consumption leads to a decline in production, an increase in unemployment and other troubles.

2% of Americans (5.5 million people, 2.3 million households) are considered "Rich." The "rich" in the United States are those whose annual income exceeds $ 100,000 per person, and family income, therefore - a quarter of a million dollars. The share of the "rich" accounts for 18% of the total monetary income of the population. This is $ 1650 billion a year. And also "rich" Americans own about 40% of all property in the United States. That's about $ 20 trillion.

The annual income of 2% of wealthy Americans is 2.35 times the combined income of all 150 million Russians

The "rich" in the US can be divided, if desired, into: "THE RICHEST" "The very rich" and "just the rich." The “RICHEST” are the 0.5% of Americans who have incomes in excess of $ 1 million per year per household. There are about 550,000 such families in the United States. They are the American elite. She, in turn, is divided into the "hereditary elite" - 200 thousand families actually ruling in the United States for 3-4 generations. All sorts of Bushes, Carnegies, Mellons, Fords, Rockefellers, etc. And self-mademen are nouveau riches, first-generation and second-class millionaires. Gates, Spielbergs, Kirkorians, Welches, etc. 550 thousand "Very rich" are families with annual income from $ 500 thousand to a million. They account for half the income of the "RICHEST"; and about the same as on the "just rich", which is twice as many, and whose annual income ranges from $ 250 to $ 500 thousand per year.

The wealthy in America live in homes worth a million dollars or more. The richest are in family estates. They buy expensive cars... They go on cruises. Their children study in private schools and the best universities in the country. They usually have their own family doctor, a highly qualified specialist. Members of the hereditary elite are not prone to demonstrative consumption. They can also go to a "regular" supermarket. Buy ready-made clothes. They don't need to prove anything to anyone. They assert themselves through the consumption of the nouveau riche. For them: jewelry with diamonds of several carats, clothes from the world's leading designers, cars adorned with rhinestones, five-star hotels for pets and other attributes of ostentatious consumption.

The middle class in the United States is 1.2 times the size of the entire population of Russia

About 23 million families (55 million people, 20% of the country's population) have incomes ranging from $ 100 to $ 250 thousand per year. This is the beauty and pride of America. American upper middle class. It accounts for about 40% of total revenues - $ 3700 billion per year. This is more than two times more than all the "Rich" ones, but the upper middls themselves are 10 times more than the "Rich" ones.

Upper middles can afford a house of 250-500 sq. m. for 350-800 thousand dollars. Moreover, they will not need a mortgage for 25 years. An ordinary loan for 10-12 years is enough, with payments from $ 50 to $ 100 thousand per year. Every two years they buy themselves new car costing from $ 25 to $ 50 thousand. Also on credit for 3-4 years. Their children also study in good schools and universities. They probably don't have a family doctor, but they have very good medical insurance. And also a very good retirement plan. With the expectation that after 65 years old to receive a pension of $ 5-10 thousand per month. The "upper middle" are not as free in their choice of consumer behavior as the rich. For most of them, with the exception of “free artists,” the consumer model is dictated by the environment: corporate standards, neighbors and communities, clubs, and the media.

A quarter of the US population (29 million families, 69 million people) have incomes from $ 50 to $ 100 thousand per family per year. Or $ 1750-3500 per month per person. This, in fact, is - the American "MIDDLE CLASS". His combined annual income is $ 2 trillion, or 22% of the combined income of Americans. It should be noted that in the USA the concepts of “middle class” and “statistical average in terms of income” practically coincide.

Homes for middle-class Americans are about 200 square meters. m., and cost $ 300-400 thousand. With a down payment of $ 100,000 and a mortgage for 25 years, the cumulative payments are well over half a million. This is 20-25 thousand a year, on average. Half of middle school students buy new cars every 3-4 years. The other half are content with used cars, changing them every two years. Middle-class children attend decent public or denominational schools. To get good higher education a middle-class young man must either have the ability or take out a loan for 10-12 years. Middle-class families have health insurance that can be used to pay for treatment for illnesses of “moderate severity”. Serious disease even for one family member, not covered by insurance pushes such a family to the margins of the consumer society. The pension plan is able to provide a representative of the middle class with a pension of $ 2-3 thousand per month. Quite a bearable existence, provided that the loans are repaid by the time of retirement.

Another 20% of the population is the lower middle class. Families with income from $ 32.5 to $ 50 thousand per year; or $ 1150-1750 per month per family member. The combined income of this group is just under one trillion dollars a year. It must be admitted that in material terms, this group is already having a very hard time. Although, a lot, of course, depends on whether the family lives in the "expensive" or "modest" state (the difference in the price level between California and any state of the Midwest can reach two times the level), family composition, health status, educational ambitions, housing situation and other factors.

Lower-middle families live in apartments of less than 100 square meters. m. or houses of 100-150 squares. Houses, usually old, were inherited. The incomes of the "lower middle" do not allow counting on a mortgage. With the cost of the most modest house or apartment in the $ 150-200 thousand, down payment in $ 15-30 thousand and installments for 30 years, the annual payments would have to be the same $ 20-25 thousand per year, i.e. from 50% to three quarters of the total family income. This is unacceptable. Not for the family, not for the mortgage agency, not for the bank. Lower-middle families don't buy new cars. But every two years they change their old car to "new" - the same used, but newer, or "abruptly". Children study in regular public schools, which Americans themselves rarely say good things about. To study in a decent university, a person from the lower middle class must have some outstanding talents, if not in the subject of his future profession, then at least in sports. Medical insurance with minimal options. Most often, within the framework of some regular federal program type "Medic-Aid". Pension - $ 1-1.5 thousand. Well, so as not to stretch your legs.

Total - American middle class broadly defined:
65% of the country's population, 180 million people, 75 million families;
72% of the total income of the population - $ 6.65 trillion per year.

Citizens whose monthly income does not exceed $ 1150 in the United States are considered poor (the upper poverty line in the United States is considered the level of living wage multiplied by 2.5), and qualify for different kinds assistance from the state. True, these manuals and forms for filling out documents still need to be able to figure it out. The "poor" in the United States - a third of the population: 91 million people, 38 million families. And they account for less than 10% of the total income of the country's population - $ 800 billion.

13% of the "Poorest" Americans, with incomes of less than $ 700 a month per person by American standards, are out of line. How difficult it is to imagine an ordinary Russian receiving $ 500 wages, on which a family of four lives “at least” medical care.

Among the American poor, there are also homeless people - 6-7% of the country's population. True, almost everyone has a car, even half of the poorest. Naturally, we are not talking about buying a new car at all. Half of the poor (16-18% of the population) have no health insurance at all. But 90% of children from poor families still go to school. A child from a poor family can go to university only by winning the Olympics, or having served 5-7 years in the American army. A poor man's pension is the same as a poverty benefit: $ 450-750 per month.

Table 1. Income distribution of the US population. 2005th year.

The total income of the population of Russia is 13 times less than that of the population of the United States. Total expenditures per household are 5 times less. Till.

The population of Russia is about 150 million people. Those. officially - 143 million. But, there are still either 2-3, or 10-15 million "guest workers", "transit emigrants", "illegal emigrants", "who did not have time to receive emigration documents", etc. citizens. For convenience, we will assume - 150 million.

According to the 2002 census, the average size of a family and household in Russia is 2.75. According to the 1989 census, it was 2.84. According to the 1979 census - 2.93. This is where the cliché comes from: "the average family is three people." Before the Great Patriotic War there were four people. At the end of the 19th century, there were five. In general, the processes are the same as in America. With a small time lag. Total - 54.5 million families, households. According to official figures - 52.5 million.

The total income of the population of Russia according to State Committee according to statistics, in 2006 they amounted to 16.8 trillion rubles. That's $ 622 billion. This is 63% of Russian GDP. Due to the fact that Goskomstat, it seems to me, somewhat underestimates the volume of GDP located in the “shadow zone” (the official estimate is 25%, mine is 35%), as well as the “shadow” or “unobservable” part of income (figures are the same ), I expertly re-estimate the total income to $ 700 billion in 2006.

For those for whom "honest word" is not enough, I recommend that you familiarize yourself with my previous publications on this topic in the Practical Marketing magazine for 2002-2005, as well as with an article published in 2002 in the Expert magazine. These publications are available in the public domain on the website of the Guild of Marketers - www.marketologi.ru. In 2004, the deputy chairman of the statistics committee, on the air of Mayak 24 radio, admitted that my calculations and considerations were not groundless, and the statistics committee had no special grounds, and no desire to dispute them. Goskomstat will strongly object to the fact that GDP and revenues are 2-3 times higher / lower than the official data. But against the fact that they can be 10-15% higher - no.

Russians spend about 10% of their monetary income ($ 70 billion) on taxes, contributions and mandatory payments. Another 12-14% ($ 85-100 billion) goes to the growth of savings. Russians save a much larger part of their income compared to Europeans, where the figure is 4-5%. But, less in comparison with Asian countries (China, India), where it can reach up to 25%.

In 2006, residents of Russia spent about $ 535 billion on the purchase of goods and payment for services. Russia has become the 10th largest consumer market in the world, behind only “ big seven», China and India.

So: $ 700 billion for 150 million people. At $ 4667 per person per year. Just under $ 400 a month. Or 10,500 rubles. By the way, in the spring of 2007 this was already the official (without additional expert estimates) average income per capita of the Russian population. Average income per household is $ 12,850 per year. This is six times lower than in the United States. And disposable income (after taxes and mandatory contributions) - 4.5 times lower.

Probably 1% of Russians can be considered “Rich”. They account for almost 15% of the total income of the population. Or about $ 100 billion a year. A month - about $ 5500 per head. $ 180 thousand per year per household. But this is on average. If desired, in Russia, according to the above scheme, it is possible to distinguish “The richest” (100 thousand families), “Very rich” (150-200 thousand families) and “just rich” (250-300 thousand families). Those interested can practice arithmetic themselves.

But there is no "hereditary elite" in Russia. The "old" one had degenerated by the middle of the 19th century, and the "new" had not had time to form. During the first 35 years of Soviet power, the process of forming a hereditary elite was hampered by a system of preventive terror. And by the end of the second 35-year period, Soviet power ended, the regime changed, and the social system as a whole. In general, it did not work out with the elite. There are exclusively nouveau riches (they are also “quick-rich”) and self-made-men (I don’t know an adequate Russian term). Maybe because of this, too, many of our today's problems?

It is not interesting to describe the consumer behavior of wealthy Russians. This is an unsympathetic mix of the consumption standards of the American nouveau riche of the 90s and the gangsters of the 30s of the last century, perceived through the masterpieces of American cinema. No humor.

This is followed by a group of approximately 5% of the country's population (7.5 million people, 2.7 million families) with incomes from $ 33 to $ 80 thousand dollars per household per year. Or $ 1-2.5 thousand per month for a family member. This is the upper part of the Russian middle class. It accounts for about 18.5% of total revenues; $ 130 billion a year.

Having accumulated 1.5-2 annual family income (in the "austerity" mode, this can be done in 3-4 years, and without fanaticism - in 7-10 years), these families are quite able to solve their housing problem, without any mortgage or credit , by exchanging with a surcharge your current apartment for a large (80-120 sq. m.) and better. Or by building a country house of 120-180 sq. m. The only city where it will not be possible to do this is Moscow. But Moscow is a special case and a separate conversation. In Moscow, the "upper average" starts at $ 1.5-2 thousand per month per family member and extends to $ 3.5-4.5 thousand.

Almost all (except for workaholics, lovers of native open spaces and their own summer cottages) "upper average" Russians annually go to rest abroad. They "arrange" their children in good "free" schools, and, if necessary, can pay for university studies (except perhaps for the most prestigious and expensive ones). They have medical insurance and "attachment" to a good clinic, most likely a "departmental" one. Once every 3-4 years, the upper middle people buy a new car (not a Zhiguli) for $ 15-30 thousand. "Upper middle" aged 40 to 50 begin to think about a personal retirement plan with the "aim" that after 60 they would receive $ 500-700 per month in "today's money". It is from this group that small private investors are recruited in Russia, of which today (mid-2007) there are already about 400-500 thousand.

Families with incomes from $ 500 to $ 1000 per month per family member, or $ 16-32 thousand per year for the whole family - this is the Russian middle class. Slightly less than 20% of families and 10 million households have such incomes in Russia. In Russia (so far), the boundaries of the middle class do not coincide with the statistical mean.

The Russian middle class lives in apartments of 45-75 sq. m. (2-3 rooms), in houses built in the post-war period (1950-1990). In the early 90s, these apartments were privatized and now form the basis of family ownership. Middle-class families can make up their minds housing problems by exchanging the existing apartment with a surcharge for a large one (60-100 sq. m.). On average, one middle-class family “lacks” 15-20 square meters. m. Which in monetary terms is $ 20-25 thousand in regional centers, $ 30-50 thousand in the capitals federal districts and $ 70-100 in Moscow. Of course, it would be very helpful to have a clear credit scheme such an exchange. But, the middle class can cope without it.

The middle class travels to have a rest in very economical "abroad" such as Egypt or Turkey. Not every year. There is not enough Turkey for everyone every year. Crimea, the resorts of the Krasnodar Territory, the middle zone of Russia, the north (not the extreme) - these are typical places for recreation of the middle class. Middle-class children study in middle-level schools. If absolutely necessary, parents can pay for tuition at a not very expensive university ($ 700-1200 per semester). Medical services have to be dispensed with "departmental" and "regional". If necessary, regularly pay for expensive medical services the family “flies out” from the middle class in 1.5 years. Average Russians buy a new car every 3-4 years for $ 10-20 thousand. It can be a "fancy" "Lada", and a "Russian foreign car", and a used (4-8 years old) European or Japanese car in fair condition. Average Russians expect to retire at $ 300-400 in today's money. And some of them (not a very large part) are even beginning to do something for this.

The income group, which can be conventionally called the “lower middle class”, coincides with the statistical average. 8-13 thousand rubles ($ 300-500) per month per family member. Or $ 10-15 thousand per year for the whole family. Roughly speaking, $ 1000 per month for a family. This is another 10 million families.

Just like their American “classmates”, the Russians of the lower middle class are not at all sweet in the material sense. The key problem today is the impossibility of improvement housing conditions... Yes, lower middle class families have an apartment of 40-65 sq. m. In order to "make" of it 70-80 sq. m. m. you need $ 35-50 thousand (1-1.5 million rubles). Under the most lenient conditions, the interest on the loan alone will have to pay 100-150 thousand rubles a year. This is half of the family's total annual income. Doesn't work. No options.

Summer rest"Lower middle" is a dacha (in best case), visiting friends, or staying at home. Children study in those schools that are "attached" to the area of ​​residence. It is possible to pay for studies at a university only by combining it with work, which is what the majority of students from this social group do. Medical insurance within the compulsory minimum. And the services are of the same level. It's scary to think about retirement. On the other hand, food and non-food items of daily demand are available without explicit restrictions. And three years ago, household appliances became available thanks to an express lending system with "draconian" interest rates (25-60% per annum in real terms). The car is used for $ 3500-7000, every five years.

Total - the Russian middle class in a broad definition:
41% of the country's population, 62 million people, 23 million families;
66% of the total income of the population - $ 460 billion a year.

The living wage in Russia in late 2006 - early 2007 reached 3200 rubles per month per person. Let's use the American criterion and multiply by 2.5. The poor in Russia are those whose income is less than 8,000 rubles ($ 300) per month per family member. And such - more than half of the population (57%). Incl. 40% are simply poor and 17% are very, very poor. Whose income is below the subsistence level. Only dynamics can please here. Three years ago, more than a quarter of the country's population was “outside the line”.

The share of the “poor” in Russia collectively accounts for even more income than the share of the “rich” ($ 140 billion a year). But the former are 57 times more than the latter. By the way, in the United States, the total income of the rich is exactly twice the total income of the poor. But, the poor in the United States are relatively fewer - "only" 33% of the population. And there are only 17 times more poor people in the United States than rich people, and not 57 times, as in Russia.

There are relatively few homeless people among the Russian poor (no more than 3% of the country's population). If the housing market were more flexible, then 10-15% of the poor could move to the middle class only by “exchanging” the available housing for a more modest and monetary rent, guaranteed by the state or the largest Russian banks with Western capital "in a share". First of all, this applies to single elderly people and families of pensioners. But there are practically no cars in Russian poor families, in contrast to American ones. The poor have to be content with the remnants of the post-Soviet education and health care systems, which have degraded monstrously over the past 15 years. It is no coincidence that among the so-called. national projects reforms of these systems occupy almost the first positions. In words. At least one third of the poor are pensioners. And they are poor precisely because in Russia a pension is not a rent earned over the previous 35-45 years of not sickly labor efforts, but a beggarly allowance for old age and disability.

Table 2. Distribution of incomes of the population of Russia. 2006th year.

The key phrase about what the dispute is going on was highlighted in a special way .....)))))

After the collapse of the USSR, the states that gained independence began their independent economic development path. The prospects, which at that time seemed bright, were not realized in every country. There are common and different points of development.

Location of members of the Commonwealth of Independent States

Certain agreements are regularly signed between the countries. For example, within the framework of the CIS, there are many agreements that combine joint actions on various economic and cultural issues in the post-Soviet countries.

For example, pension issues are regulated by the Agreement, which guarantees the rights of citizens of the member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States in the field of providing pension payments. But at this stage of cultural and economic development in terms of wages and pensions, the CIS countries have significant differences that determine the flows of migrants between them.

The standard of living in the CIS countries is this moment has discrepancies in the following indicators:

• Cash income population (minimum and average wages).
• Social security of the population.
• The unemployment rate.
• The level of crime.
• The ecological state.
• Development of culture.
• Political stability.
• Satisfaction of residents with the development of their country.

For example, each of the CIS countries has its own laws that protect consumers. The first such laws were adopted in the Republic of Kazakhstan and Ukraine. Since 1992, the law "On Protection of Consumer Rights" has been in effect in Russia.

Work in the CIS countries is paid in different ways. Leading in the CIS in. Pretty good and tall. The worst situation is with Tajikistan (Table 3).

You can familiarize yourself with it on our website.

Table 3. Size average salary in the CIS countries, Western countries, the USA

Regulation of pension issues

Often he wonders if they can receive a pension on the territory of the Russian Federation. In this case, they are usually guided by laws that stipulate all issues in this direction.

Pension legislation confirms that citizens who have arrived from the CIS and have citizenship of one of its countries should be assigned pensions.

However, this only happens if they received it. At the same time, international treaties say something different. They give foreign citizens more rights to assign a pension (in comparison with the laws of Russia).

Citizens of the CIS countries, according to the 1992 Agreement, arriving in the Russian Federation, have the opportunity to receive pension payments according to the work experience acquired in the USSR before 03.13.1992, or after this date in the countries participating in the Agreement. Work experience received on the territory of the states that signed the Agreement is equal to insurance experience.

Pensions in the CIS countries

Russia, Uzbekistan and Belarus are in first place in terms of the average size of pensions. Citizens individual countries don't even get $ 100. Most people receiving pension payments per 1000 people are in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. Potential retirement ages range from 55 to 63 for women and 60 to 63 for men (Table 1).

Table 1. The size of pensions and the number of pensioners in the CIS countries

Who is eligible to receive a pension in the CIS countries?

• Persons who have reached a certain age.
• Persons who have lost their breadwinner.
• Disabled people.
• Military, doctors, policemen and other categories of the population by length of service.
• Citizens who have special marks of honor for services to the state (Table 2).

Table 2. Average monthly pension in Russia

At the beginning of 2020, it amounted to 2,480 hryvnia ($ 86). In the fall of 2017, a pension reform was carried out, and another increase is planned in 2020. In April 2018, social pensions were increased by 3%, which currently amount to about $ 158.

In Azerbaijan, a social pension is paid in the amount of $ 60, - $ 45, - $ 33, in Belarus - $ 112.

Housing prices in the CIS countries in 2019-2020

In terms of housing prices, among the CIS countries, Turkmenistan and Russia are in the lead. The cheapest housing in Tajikistan (Table 4).

Table 4. Housing prices in the CIS countries and in Western countries (per 1 sq. M.)

The best cities to live in the CIS countries: Almaty, Moscow, Minsk, Baku and Bishkek. In terms of general indicators of the amount of taxes, real estate with high profitability, the level of education, the cost of medical care, the city of Almaty is becoming the leader. According to the income level of residents, the first three cities are Moscow, Almaty and Minsk. Read about on our website.

The labor market situation is most favorable in Minsk. There are only one percent of the unemployed here. The cheapest medicine is in the city of Bishkek. Here, for an appointment with a general practitioner, you will have to pay about $ 6, and, for example, in Moscow - about $ 15.

Observance of consumer rights in the CIS

All CIS countries, with the exception of the Republic of Belarus, decided to entrust consumer protection rights to already existing structural divisions. Only in Belarus were new state structures for consumer protection created.

Ukraine is an example of harmonious antitrust legislation in the area of ​​consumer protection. The Economic Code of this country defines that as a state it must protect the rights and interests of business entities and consumers.

Food prices

The average prices for food products in the CIS countries (in terms of the dollar exchange rate) do not differ significantly (Table 5). But if we consider them from the point of view of the average salary, then the situation turns out to be a little different (Table 3 in the section Average salary in the CIS and Table 5).

Table 5. Food prices (at the rate of 2020)