Since 2015, the country’s indigenous population has been steadily declining. This is due to the drop in birth rates. This is evidenced by the data of a large-scale demographic study of the Russian State Social University. Based on a survey of 9,350 respondents from six regions of the Russian Federation.
Today, an average family has 1.5 children, that is, 9.6 per thousand of the population are newborns. The analyzes show that this number should be 13-14 people in order to keep the population at its current level. This means that half of Russian families must have at least three children.
This is the national idea. A family with three children has everything you need.
But what does safe mean? The average salary in the country today is 59 thousand rubles. Obviously, the support of families with three children should be guaranteed by the state. The question is in what ways this support will be effective. After all, even maternity capital has ceased to have the stimulating effect for which it was designed.
Therefore, the study conducted by RSSU scientists includes certain social and economic proposals that can be put up for discussion.
The first set of measures that do not require radical solutions is as follows: First of all, it is proposed to pay the amount of 12 minimum wages at the birth of a child. This does not contradict the idea of ”maternal” capital, as it is designed to solve strategic problems and the family may need to solve daily, topical problems. And most importantly, this is money that young parents have the right to dispose of at their discretion.
The second measure of the same package is to expand the list and amount of aid and subsidies, including non-monetary forms.
In my opinion, the priority package should be guaranteed comfort in schools and preschool institutions for all children from extended families, with the elimination of queues. And this approach should be declared to the society as a state priority.
State policy should be based not on the support of the individual, but on the family, which is a cell of traditional society, whatever one may say.
Let’s be realistic – these measures will not fundamentally change the situation. Therefore, a medium-term demographic policy package should be developed, recognizing it as a basic “ambulance”.
I think it should include the following measures.
Exemption from compulsory military service in a non-mobilization order if men have minor dependent children and the total number of children is three or more. This at least gives the family a sense of stability. And our study says that uncertainty about the future is one of the reasons for not having children.
A mechanism should be developed to provide subsidies to offset loan interest rates for extended families on consumer, business and mortgage loans. Also, this benefit must be declarative in nature. Calculating subsidies, their maximum level depending on the number of underage children, is not such a difficult task for a qualified banker.
And one more important decision of a social nature should be discussed. In my opinion, in vitro fertilization should also be included in the CHI program. However, abortions should be excluded unless for medical indications. Well, the problem of the birth of a child should not be solved as simply as going to the dentist!
And finally, we should consider promoting the social nanny agency for extended families as a public service.
If we are talking about creating long-term conditions for increasing the birth rate, then a number of long-term projects should be implemented. These include the provision of guaranteed proactive housing for all large families in accordance with standards for social employment conditions. Today, not a single average large family can afford a three-room apartment mortgage, even on preferential terms. Not to mention the fact that three rooms are clearly not enough. And for families living in rural areas, it is necessary to provide the most preferential loan to build houses, similar to the Far East. Shelter consistently ranks second among the reasons why people hesitate to have another child.
Finally, the creation of federal state retail chains with fixed trade margins may be considered. Indeed, the nature of pricing today is the main secret of private retail chains. With food subsidies without full-fledged competition, we will not only accelerate food inflation, but by creating a competitor, we can significantly affect the purchasing power of not only the most vulnerable, but also priority segments of the population.
And finally, the measure that may cause the most resistance: I propose the return of the childlessness tax. The funds of this tax should be used in a targeted way for the implementation of demographic programs, as with the personal income tax.
However, it would be fair to restrict the employment of people who do not have children in certain positions. How can you make responsible decisions if a person doesn’t know what it means to be responsible for someone else’s life – the life of their child – other than their own? I foresee objections to the couple’s reproductive health. But what’s stopping you from adopting a baby? So adopt! This is the only way people in important positions set an example to others. We really lack similar examples driven by the public.
Perhaps some of the proposals made will seem controversial – ready for discussion. But what is undeniable is that we have to deal with today’s demographics if we want to own tomorrow.
The author expresses his personal opinion, which may not coincide with the editors’ position.