A second baby? Russia's mothers aren't persuaded.

[LaoSexMachine]

A second baby? Russia's mothers aren't persuaded.

Despite a cash incentive from the government, the birthrate continues to decline.

By Fred Weir



MOSCOW - Cash for babies is the Kremlin's offer to women in its latest bid to reverse a population decline that threatens to leave large swaths of Russia virtually uninhabited within 50 years.
President Vladimir Putin last week defined the crisis as Russia's most acute problem, and promised to spend some of the country's oil profits on efforts to relieve it. He ordered parliament to more than double monthly child support payments to 1,500 rubles (about $55) and added that women who choose to have a second baby will receive 250,000 rubles ($9,200), a staggering sum in a country where average monthly incomes hover close to $330.
On Monday, young women at the Family Planning Youth Center, a nongovernmental clinic for northwest Moscow, said they liked the sound of more money, but suggested that Mr. Putin has no concept of their lives. "A child is not an easy project, and in this world a woman is expected to get an education, find a job, and make a career," says Svetlana Romanicheva, a student who says she won't consider babies for at least five years. She hopes to have one child, but says a second would depend on her life "working out very well." As for Putin's offer, she says "it won't change anything."
Russia's birthrate, falling for decades, has plunged in post-Soviet times, to just 1.17 in 2004 from 2.08 babies per woman in 1990 - far below the 2.4 children required to maintain the population - according to the Federal State Statistics Service. The average rate from 2000-05 in the US, by contrast, was 2.0, according to UN figures, while Mexico, for example, weighed in at 2.4 and Italy at 1.3.
Russia also has one of the world's highest abortion rates. In addition, the death rate has climbed to levels seldom seen in peacetime, to 16.3 in 2002 from 10.7 per thousand people in 1988. The result is a population that is shrinking by an average of 700,000 people each year - and aging. A UN report last year predicted that Russia's population, around 145 million in 2002, could fall by one-third by 2050.
Experts foretell the grim prospect of a Russia that can no longer man its factories, field a decent hockey team, or defend its borders. "I think Putin's main concern is a lack of future soldiers," says Yury Levada, head of the Levada Center, an independent polling agency. "That's a narrow perspective, but one that resonates politically."
Some women say they resent the suggestion, made explicit by many nationalist politicians, that their lack of enthusiasm for bearing children is to blame. "This problem began long ago, and even if we were to have more babies it wouldn't mean the situation ... would improve," says Irina Isayeva, a medical student who volunteers at the family center. "A woman has to ... ensure that her conditions are adequate to raise children. Women may want fewer children, but be able to give them better chances in life."
Young women also say that it's hard to find a good partner. Official statistics show that almost 8 of every 10 marriages end in divorce, and one-third of children are born out of wedlock. "The interests of men and women seem different, so women just depend less on men," says Olga Istomina, a student. "A lot of people live together. Partners change all the time."
Others say Putin is moving in the right direction. "Russian women typically have one child ... but many of my patients would like a second if they felt they had enough support," says Galina Dedova, a gynecologist at Happy Families, a private Moscow clinic. "Most of my patients count their rubles.... If they could reliably expect more money, some might [consider] more children."
Putin also doubled subsidies for foster families, to 4,500 rubles ($166) per month, a move widely welcomed by child- care experts. In recent years, Russia has cracked down on foreign adoptions, leaving 700,000 institutionalized children with few options. "I believe the situation will begin to improve after Putin's measures, and more people will see the importance of adopting," says Galina Krasnitskaya, an adviser to Russia's State Duma.
Critics point to the high male death rate, a problem Putin barely addressed. Men's ranks have been decimated by alcoholism, war in Chechnya, AIDS, and accidents. "Male life expectancy is less than 60 years," says Yevgeny Gontmakher, research head of the Center of Social Studies, an independent Moscow think tank. "Trying to stimulate the birthrate is pure populism; it's naive to think a demographic revolution can happen."
Low birthrates and high mortality could deliver an economic wallop that could dash Putin's hopes of restoring Russia as a great power. "If current trends persist, there will be four dependents for every Russian worker by 2025," Regional Development Minister Vladimir Yakovlev warned last month. "Russia needs a million new workers every year. If we don't get them, we can forget about economic growth."
Some say that Russia must open its doors to immigrants, as many Western countries have done. But Putin insists that only ethnic Russians - about 25 million remain stranded in former Soviet countries - will be eligible for easy entry. Polls show large majorities remain hostile to the idea of mass immigration of non-Slavs.
Nadezhda Kalmikova, director of the Family Planning Center, says she believes that money will solve little. "[F]amilies need to be sure there will be all the things children need," she says. "That goes beyond material requirements.... [W]e need children who will grow up well and become good citizens. You can't buy that."



www.csmonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/) | Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures

http://abcnews.go.com/International/CSM/story?id=1979104

[Telnyashka]

You gotta love the narrow perspective that this is simply for soldiers.. Thats the dumbest comment I have seen in awhile. Seriously, the need to fight this goes way beyond just needing soldiers...Its a country's people we're talking about. I think the President understands that for a country you need uhmm...whats that called... a population. I read this joke of an article on Mosnews I believe about this argument, it was pathetic. It's like saying USA is giving vaccinations to kids so they get strong enough for the army *rolleyes*.

[Lokos]

Don't worry yourselves too much. Populations ebb and flow. The Russian nation is in very little danger. Following the Civil War of 1918-1924, the Soviet Union experienced extremely low birth rates. The trend eventually corrected itself.


"Male life expectancy is less than 60 years," says Yevgeny Gontmakher, research head of the Center of Social Studies, an independent Moscow think tank. "Trying to stimulate the birthrate is pure populism; it's naive to think a demographic revolution can happen."

And because he says it, it must be true.


Despite a cash incentive from the government, the birthrate continues to decline.

Really? In the months since the introduction of the $10,000 incentive the birthrate has continued to decline? They can measure that?

Journalistic naivety.

Lokos

[Sir Zach of R.]

Takes 9 months to make a baby geniuses.

[Rictor]

The fact that Russian women have failed to produce a population boom within a week of Putin's accouncement is a clear sign of the lack of enthusiasm and low morale of the child-bearing project. Any normal nation would be awash in babies by now, but not poor old Russia. It's doomed I tell ya, doomed! We might as well amend the maps now, the nation's days are numbered.

[LaoSexMachine]

I think the point of the article is that they DON"T WANT TO HAVE A SECOND CHILD. People with kids know how hard it is.

[Kilgor]

And because he says it, it must be true.



The figures are often confirmed from Russian's own internal data.
So yes... It is true.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Maybe they just don't want to get jiggy with Russian guys ;-)

Putting nomex underwear on now

[Lokos]

The figures are often confirmed from Russian's own internal data.
So yes... It is true.

And which internal data is that, which can accurately depict the impact of a long-term programme designed to stimulate population growth artificially, a few months after its introduction?

Lokos

[Kilgor]

I was refering to the male life expectancy figures.

[Lokos]

I was refering to the male life expectancy figures.

I was, obviously, not. It was this following part that interested me, initially:


"Trying to stimulate the birthrate is pure populism; it's naive to think a demographic revolution can happen."

Lokos

[ClydeFrog]

Don't worry yourselves too much. Populations ebb and flow. The Russian nation is in very little danger. Following the Civil War of 1918-1924, the Soviet Union experienced extremely low birth rates. The trend eventually corrected itself.

Just like in many other countries (mine included) the Russian birth rates continue to decline, and they do so since the mid 80s. That IS a big problem. If the Russian economy was better off they'd have a lot of immigration, like many western Europe countries.

And these incentives are really just a drop in the bucket. They'll sure as hell won't change much.

[Lokos]

If the Russian economy was better off they'd have a lot of immigration, like many western Europe countries.


Yeah, and maybe if the Russians allowed the immigration of ethnicities not native to Russia, in the first place...

As for your professional opinion on the effectiveness of these incentives, I'm sure the Russian government will take note of your round condemnation, and accordingly change their naturally hopeless policy.

Lokos

[ClydeFrog]

Yeah, and maybe if the Russians allowed the immigration of ethnicities not native to Russia, in the first place...

As for your professional opinion on the effectiveness of these incentives, I'm sure the Russian government will take note of your round condemnation, and accordingly change their naturally hopeless policy.

Lokos
Oh you are so cunning :roll:

We recently had a very interesting speech in our university by the Monitor Group, Peter Schwartz to be exact, concerning the future ethnic and demographic development in Europe. And he spoke both on the birthrate declining in Russia as well as their puny attempts to flip the trend.

But I'm sure you'll know better.

[Lokos]

And he spoke both on the birthrate declining in Russia as well as their puny attempts to flip the trend.


Heaven forbid an academic is proven wrong. I mean, just imagine...

Your (and Peter Schwartz's) concern for the Russians is touching. Oh, noes, by 2050 they could be half gone!

I don't think I'm ready to devote time and effort to refute an irrefutable position. After all, I am no more a fortune teller than you are. Leave these childish debates alone. I hope to be around to see how it all turns out. In the meantime, I'm not worried.

Lokos

[NicNZ]

Here in New Zealand, as in many countries that arent Russia we can produce babies in days, if not hours, if we so desire.

[themacedonian]

I have no idea why what Putin has announced as a policy to lift the birth rate is taken by the press as a negative thing.

Here Christian Science Monitor CAN see the birth rate declining only 2 WEEKS after Putins speech. I used to have respect for this news source :(.

Then I read another article that suggest that Putins needs more children to be used as CANNON FODDER and the article writer finnishes up that is another reason why she will never have children.

http://www.mosnews.com/feature/2006/05/17/fodder.shtml

“It seems that the Defense Ministry is the only institution that understands why it is necessary to solve the demographic problem in Russia,” Andrei Illarionov, former presidential aide and, since recently, vocal critic of the Kremlin regime, said commenting on Putin’s remark that the Defense Ministry understood quite well the importance of such notions as love, women and children.

What do they know about “love” in the army? While love means nothing without respect for human life and dignity, the Russian armed forces are plagued with bullying, so-called “non-statutory relationships”, with conscripts beaten, molested and driven to suicide? Kids left disabled, crippled for life with their genitals amputated! And he says the Defense Ministry understands such things as love and children…

Had he been just a bit more honest — although he is quite frank, of course — he could have openly said: “Give us cannon fodder!” Indeed, he did not go as far as Josef Stalin, as The New York Times noted last week, and encouraged women to give birth by offering Medals of Maternal Glory to repopulate a country thinned by repression and war.

They are trying to solve the crisis through good old militaristic methods. At the same time they insist that their objective is to build a free democratic society under the rule of law.

Vladimir Putin has given me another excuse for not having children. Ever.

THERE IS STUPIDITY if I EVER SO ONE.

[ClydeFrog]

Heaven forbid an academic is proven wrong. I mean, just imagine...

Your (and Peter Schwartz's) concern for the Russians is touching. Oh, noes, by 2050 they could be half gone!

I don't think I'm ready to devote time and effort to refute an irrefutable position. After all, I am no more a fortune teller than you are. Leave these childish debates alone. I hope to be around to see how it all turns out. In the meantime, I'm not worried.

LokosOh yeah. Let's all close our eyes and hope for the best! You should become a politician someday.

[Lokos]

Let's all close our eyes and hope for the best!

Yes, let's.

Well, I will. You can go and advise that terribly inept Russian government on matters of state policy.

Lokos

[ClydeFrog]

I don't. I'm just stating that subsidizing babys is not the answer to declining birth rates. You're the one drawing conclusions and seeing implications everywhere. Get lost.

[Lokos]

You're the one drawing conclusions and seeing implications everywhere. Get lost.

For someone who began this by commenting on a post of mine, I find your dismissal interesting.


I'm just stating that subsidizing babys is not the answer to declining birth rates.

And you are who, exactly, to have the 'right' answer to this question?

Lokos

[ClydeFrog]

For someone who began this by commenting on a post of mine, I find your dismissal interesting.



And you are who, exactly, to have the 'right' answer to this question?

Lokos
I'm not an expert on the matter, but at least I recently heard a three hour speech on it. What do you have?

[dacanadianbomb]

Do you two want to take this to PM's ?

A Low Birth rate is a problem yes, but of course you wont be able to measure anything a few months later.Lets talk again in two-3 years time or so.

Then you both can b1tch and whine in that retarded wannabe smart way at each other again.

Bad journalism.

[Rictor]

I don't. I'm just stating that subsidizing babys is not the answer to declining birth rates.

Then what, may I ask, is? Sure, you could take that money and it put it into improving healthcare etc, but that would only prolong the lifespan of those already alive, and it would have no long term impact on a declining population. And I'm pretty sure that that's already happening naturally as the living standards increase. You could also open the country to immigration, but that's not a viable long term solution, since it would introduce significant numbers of people who not historically, culturally or politically Russian.

The only real way to reverse a trend of declining population is to make more babies. And the most direct way the state can influence that is by offering cash incentives. Sure, religious authorities or state authorities can deliver some kind of "do it for the fatherland" rhetoric, but democratic countries are usually less nationalistic, and such a call is bound to mostly fall on deaf ears.

[ClydeFrog]

Then what, may I ask, is? Sure, you could take that money and it put it into improving healthcare etc, but that would only prolong the lifespan of those already alive, and it would have no long term impact on a declining population. And I'm pretty sure that that's already happening naturally as the living standards increase. You could also open the country to immigration, but that's not a viable long term solution, since it would introduce significant numbers of people who not historically, culturally or politically Russian.

The only real way to reverse a trend of declining population is to make more babies. And the most direct way the state can influence that is by offering cash incentives. Sure, religious authorities or state authorities can deliver some kind of "do it for the fatherland" rhetoric, but democratic countries are usually less nationalistic, and such a call is bound to mostly fall on deaf ears.Where I live declining birth rates have been a problem for years, too. And i completely agree immigration will throw up more problems than it will actually solve. The problem I have with baby subsidizing is frankly that you're going to reach the wrong people with such a policy. Those who are well off don't need the extra money, for them it won't be incentive enough for having another child. On the other hand, poor people, often with poor education will fall for such a policy. And you end up creating more problems. It's pretty much the same problem as with immigration. Immigration as such isn't bad, but usually it's not the people you want that immigrate. So either you change the minds of the people so they really want more children or you won't get anywhere...

Another option would be to simply let the population decline and raise the age where people may retire. Not very popular, but that's what's recently been decided here.

[Lokos]

I'm not an expert on the matter, but at least I recently heard a three hour speech on it. What do you have?

Great, you've heard a three hour speech. Congratulations.

I don't have much, on my side. Then again, I wasn't pretending I did.

But if you're not an expert on the matter, perhapsm you should not make blanket assertions you cannot possibly back up, hmm?


So either you change the minds of the people so they really want more children or you won't get anywhere...

Another option would be to simply let the population decline and raise the age where people may retire. Not very popular, but that's what's recently been decided here.

Your first 'suggestion' begs the question 'How?'. Your second is not a suggestion to improve the birthrate at all, but to deal with the symptoms of a declining population.

This has obviously made me value your opinion more.

...

Lokos

[Alan]

For note, the low life expectancy is actually because a lot of young people die in violent deaths on the street. Believe it or not, close to 40,000 a year. It doesen't mean that people usually die of natural death at 59...

Both my grandfathers, living in Russia, are still alive, both are over 75 years of age. Both my grandmothers are alive and well as well, my grandma on my dad's side turned 80 last year.

[ClydeFrog]

It has been done in the past, by the Nazis for example. Intrinsic motivation is the key. Make them feel like they are part of something. To my understanding (feel free to correct me) in many Muslim countries a woman is valued higher when she has many children. Not that I want the world to turn Muslim, but the "career woman" idol popular in the west is kind of counter-(baby)-productive.

[DIU]

Of course, the problem is not purely financial. The main problem is a spiritual disease creeping from the West and imposed by the West, the idea of living for the own pleasure solely. It is more prestigious and convenient to get a new car instead of a baby. Besides, the wild capitalism of “liberal” model: many women fear to lose job as a result of pregnancy, or find themselves in trouble with numerous children in case of divorce.
Now the Russian society becomes to realize acuteness of the problem, and many measures to solve it are discussed. Not only the financial ones, though the financial security for women with young children is exceptionally important too.

The article in The Christian Science Monitor is doubtful. According to the current Russian sources (for example, http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/2006/0237/barom03.php), the average Russian woman gave birth to 1,34 children in 2004 (reproduction requires 2,1 – 2,3 children per woman). This corresponds to natality of the “aborigen” population in the most part of European countries (the same 1,3 in Germany or Italy). The birth rate began to increase slowly in Russia (the worst 8,3 per 1000 in 1999, 9,7 per 1000 in 2002, 10,2 per 1000 in 2003, 10,4 per 1000 in 2004) – see http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/2006/0237/img/b_graf07.gif (http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/2006/0237/img/b_graf07.gif) . Of course, this is much lower than 17,2 in 1986-87.
Previously the birth rate in the Russian Federation was 20,2 in 1962, 14,1 in 1968 (the first minimum), 15,3 in 1972. Thus, the growth took place about 1970 and in 1983-87.

Finally, I would recommend the U.S. “well-wishers” to mind their own business. The same demographists predict that the white population will become a minority in U.S.A by 2050, or even earlier. It does not reproduce itself too, though to the less extent than in Russia now.

[Lt. James Anderson]

I think the happiest solution for Russia would be to open the flood gates and let the thirld worlders take over. They are good at that stuff. It has been proven. It works. Just take a look at Europe and US ... LOL

People are people (no difference ... we are all equal LOL). Just ask any Marxist degenerate for more in depth info on how a healthy society is destroyed.


The same demographists predict that the white population will become a minority in U.S.A by 2050, or even earlier.

If I'm to believe my eyes, the Whites are a minority right fcuking now.

[Son_Of_Suvorov]

The problem I have with baby subsidizing is frankly that you're going to reach the wrong people with such a policy. Those who are well off don't need the extra money, for them it won't be incentive enough for having another child. On the other hand, poor people, often with poor education will fall for such a policy. And you end up creating more problems.

Oh, right, what are they thinking, letting the poor people reproduce? After all, it's not like anybody that ever came from a family with less than average income ever did anything good - they're all going to turn out junkies and criminals.

[ClydeFrog]

Of course, the problem is not purely financial. The main problem is a spiritual disease creeping from the West and imposed by the West, the idea of living for the own pleasure solely. It is more prestigious and convenient to get a new car instead of a baby. Besides, the wild capitalism of “liberal” model: many women fear to lose job as a result of pregnancy, or find themselves in trouble with numerous children in case of divorce.
Now the Russian society becomes to realize acuteness of the problem, and many measures to solve it are discussed. Not only the financial ones, though the financial security for women with young children is exceptionally important too.
Russian birth rates started to decline before the end of the Soviet Union. Maybe that did speed up the process, but it didn't cause it. So blaming the "spiritual disease creeping from the west" is a little far fetched and sure is not the only relevant factor. If you like it or not another one was the collapse of the economic system which still hasn't recovered fully.

Oh, right, what are they thinking, letting the poor people reproduce? After all, it's not like anybody that ever came from a family with less than average income ever did anything good - they're all going to turn out junkies and criminals.The "from the ghetto to the top" thing is the exception not the rule, poor households correlate with poor education. The better your parents are off the more likely you will get to have a good job. You can read that in any socio-economic book.

[DIU]

Russian birth rates started to decline before the end of the Soviet Union. Maybe that did speed up the process, but it didn't cause it. So blaming the "spiritual disease creeping from the west" is a little far fetched and sure is not the only relevant factor. If you like it or not another one was the collapse of the economic system which still hasn't recovered fully.
Are you affirming that USSR was secured from the "spiritual disease creeping from the west"? By the way, Karl Marx was not a Russian and had never been in Russia, and even buried in London (or sooner Londonabad now). And such words as “industrialization” (“industrializatsia” in Russian), “urbanization” (“urbanizatsia” in Russian), “economical effectiveness” (“ekonomicheskaya effektivnost” in Russian) etc. are not of the Russian origin too. From the end of 1950s USSR placed the emphasis on the said “economical effectiveness” and growth of material consumption, i.e. quite Western priorities (though the Stalin’s “industrialization” and “urbanization” were the Western ideas too, implemented in Russia with 100-200-300 years’ delay). And some material success was achieved, with the same demographic results as in Europe. If finally the Soviet “communist” economical organization showed itself to be less effective than the Western “capitalist” one, this does not mean that the goals were completely different.

And how do you explain the natality of 1,32 children per woman in Germany or 1,33 in Japan or 1,28 in “catholic” Italy (I remind that 2,1 is the minimum for reproduction, even if the medicine is ideal)? France has 1,87, but this is the best example that statistics can be deceptive (the most part of “French” Arabs and Africans are French citizens), just as 2,04 of USA. Are they poor countries? And what is wrong with their economic system?

[Son_Of_Suvorov]

The "from the ghetto to the top" thing is the exception not the rule, poor households correlate with poor education. The better your parents are off the more likely you will get to have a good job. You can read that in any socio-economic book.

I never said anything like that. Besides, your argument is nonsensical - are you going to "breed out" all of the poorly-paying, low-skill jobs?

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

http://danzigercartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/dancart2785.jpg

[Telnyashka]

And such words as “industrialization” (“industrializatsia” in Russian), “urbanization” (“urbanizatsia” in Russian), “economical effectiveness” (“ekonomicheskaya effektivnost” in Russian) etc. are not of the Russian origin too.

The Russian word for Nightmare is from the French word Cauchemar which is also Nightmare. So does that mean Russians never had nightmares without the French? Your other arguments are interesting, this one is simply stupid.

[ClydeFrog]

Are you affirming that USSR was secured from the "spiritual disease creeping from the west"? By the way, Karl Marx was not a Russian and had never been in Russia, and even buried in London (or sooner Londonabad now). And such words as “industrialization” (“industrializatsia” in Russian), “urbanization” (“urbanizatsia” in Russian), “economical effectiveness” (“ekonomicheskaya effektivnost” in Russian) etc. are not of the Russian origin too.So? What does Karl Marx have to do with this? Are you implying Karl Marx was responsible for declining Russian birth rates? Wow, talk about far-fetched. A man who died more than a century ago?

From the end of 1950s USSR placed the emphasis on the said “economical effectiveness” and growth of material consumption, i.e. quite Western priorities (though the Stalin’s “industrialization” and “urbanization” were the Western ideas too, implemented in Russia with 100-200-300 years’ delay). And some material success was achieved, with the same demographic results as in Europe. If finally the Soviet “communist” economical organization showed itself to be less effective than the Western “capitalist” one, this does not mean that the goals were completely different.Aha so Russia would be better of being a tzarist, agricultural state eh? Why not another step backward and let's get back to living in caves. Seems like the western countries really improved their welfare through the evil "industrialization" and "urbanization". And sure it's our fault Stalin forced an industrial state upon Russia at a time it wasn't fully prepared yet.



And how do you explain the natality of 1,32 children per woman in Germany or 1,33 in Japan or 1,28 in “catholic” Italy (I remind that 2,1 is the minimum for reproduction, even if the medicine is ideal)? France has 1,87, but this is the best example that statistics can be deceptive (the most part of “French” Arabs and Africans are French citizens), just as 2,04 of USA. Are they poor countries? And what is wrong with their economic system?Like I said before we have the same problem, duh. Main problem is that our economy is on a hold. We're not growing anymore, at least not fast enough. And yes it's a huge problem that needs to be solved.

I never said anything like that. Besides, your argument is nonsensical - are you going to "breed out" all of the poorly-paying, low-skill jobs?No, but there's no reason in making it worse.