Readers' Choice
Popular articles
"... According to the statistics of 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 of economic development of the USSR and the USA in 1987 (data from the American reference book Soviet Economic Structura and Performance: let's pay attention to the spread of nominal figures in comparison with the upper table, but keeping the relative figures)
Indicators 1987
USSR USSR1GDP $ 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
12 Aluminum production 3.0 million tons. 3.3 million tons
13Copper 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 mining 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 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 liquidating an economy that had achieved such successes.
And here is the situation here
http://www.rb.ru/topstory/economics/...20/121547.htmlBloomberg 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 by the investment bank UBS "Prices and Earnings", 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.
In terms of wages, Moscow is in 48th place out of 70. For a month of work, Muscovites receive four times less from the usual salary of a New Yorker. According to Rosstat, the average accrued wages in Moscow are just over 20,000 a month.
The Indonesians live worst of all. 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 minimum 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 second this time, and London is 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.
At the bottom of the list are cities in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The cheapest consumer lives 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 you 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, giving way to Istanbul, Tallinn, Riga and Budapest.
And here is a comparative analysis of Americans and Russians
Distribution of income in Russia and the USA
Publications
Igor Berezin
Lead Consultant Romir
President of the Guild of MarketersOnly Gd knows the true picture of income distribution 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 agencies.
The US population is 275 million (2005). This is 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 the Second World War - 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 would like to 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. Until. Until the European Union turned into a single state. And so far China has not realized 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, 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 the "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. This is 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.
America's wealthy 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. Representatives of the hereditary elite are not inclined 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 in 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. A regular loan for 10-12 years is enough, with payments from $ 50 to $ 100 thousand per year. Every two years, they buy themselves a new car that costs between $ 25,000 and $ 50,000. Also on credit for 3-4 years. Their children also study in good schools and universities. They probably do not 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 of age 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 actually is - the American "MIDDLE CLASS". His total annual income is $ 2 trillion, or 22% of the total 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. In order to get a good higher education, a young person from the middle class must either have the ability or take out a loan for 10-12 years. Middle-class families have health insurance, which can be used to pay for treatment for diseases of "moderate severity". A serious illness even in one family member that is 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 tolerable 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 materially this group is already having a very hard time. Although, a lot, of course, depends on whether the family lives in an "expensive" or "modest" state (the difference in price levels 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 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 at $ 150-200 thousand, an initial payment of $ 15-30 thousand and an installment plan 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 for a “new” one - the same used one, but newer, or “cooler”. Children study in regular public schools, about which Americans themselves rarely say good things. To study at 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 such as 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 subsistence level multiplied by 2.5), and are entitled to various types of assistance from the state. True, you still need to be able to understand these manuals and forms for filling out documents. 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. No matter how hard it is to imagine an ordinary Russian who receives $ 500 in salary, on which a family of four lives "at the very least" (after all, lives rather poorly), in the USA with such incomes you can really "stretch your legs" from hunger, cold, and lack of medical attention.
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 get to university only after winning the Olympics, or after serving 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 expenses per household are 5 times less. Until.
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.
The average size of a family and household in Russia, according to the 2002 census, 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 - five. In general, the processes are the same as in America. With a small time lag. Total - 54.5 million families and households. According to official figures - 52.5 million.
According to the State Statistics Committee, the total income of the population of Russia in 2006 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 journal "Practical Marketing" for 2002-2005, as well as with an article published in 2002 in the journal "Expert". 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 unfounded, 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, Russian residents spent about $ 535 billion on purchasing goods and paying for services. Russia has become the 10th largest consumer market in the world, behind only the G7, 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) is 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 who wish can practice their own arithmetic.
But there is no “hereditary elite” in Russia. The "old" one had degenerated as early as the middle of the 19th century, and the "new" one did not have 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 consumption 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 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 annually.
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. Every 3-4 years the upper middlemen 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 solve their housing problems by exchanging the existing apartment for a large one (60-100 sq. M.) With an additional payment. On average, one middle-class family “lacks” 15-20 square meters. m. That in monetary terms is $ 20-25 thousand in regional centers, $ 30-50 thousand in the capitals of federal districts and $ 70-100 in Moscow. Of course, a clear credit scheme for such an exchange would not be in the way. 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 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 "district". If it is necessary to regularly pay for expensive medical services, the family leaves 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 improving 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, only the interest on the loan will have to be paid 100-150 thousand rubles a year. This is half of the family's total annual income. Doesn't work. No options.
Summer vacation "lower middle" - this is a dacha (at best), trips to friends or stay at home. Children study in those schools that are "attached" to the area of \u200b\u200bresidence. 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 “out of 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 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 retirees. 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 been monstrously degraded over the past 15 years. It is no coincidence that among the so-called. national projects for the reform 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 .....)))))
The USSR and the USA are two world superpowers that vied for supremacy in everything from the post-war period to the early 90s of the last century. Economics was a very important aspect of this struggle. Particularly great importance was given to the GDP of the USSR and the USA. Comparison of these indicators was quite a powerful tool in the propaganda of both countries. But at the same time, with the help of these economic data, we will also be able now, through the veil of the past years, to restore the real state of affairs in the studied countries. So, what was the GDP of the USSR and the United States during the period of their rivalry?
But before we analyze the GDP of the USSR and the USA, let's find out what this concept is in general and what types of it exist.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the value of all goods and services produced in a particular state or region. If we divide the total GDP by the average number of inhabitants of the territory to which it belongs, then we get the gross product per capita.
Indicators can be divided into two large groups: nominal and purchasing power parity. The nominal is expressed in national currency, or in terms of the currency of any other country at a fixed rate. When calculating GDP at parity, the ratio of currencies to each other in terms of purchasing power relative to a specific type of goods or services is taken into account.
Although the main peak of rivalry between the USSR and the United States falls on the period after World War II, for the sake of completeness it will be useful to look at how their GDP changed in the first half of the 20th century.
The pre-war period was quite difficult both for the economy of the USSR and for B, at this time, the country was recovering after the Civil War, which resulted, including two strongest hunger periods in 1922 and 1932-1933, and the United States in 1929-1932 experienced a period its history, known as the Great Depression.
Most of all, the economy of the country of the Soviets sank in relation to the US GDP immediately after the Civil War in 1922. At that time, domestic GDP was only about 13% of that in the United States. But, in the following years, the USSR began to rapidly reduce the backlog. By the pre-war 1940, the USSR's GDP was equal to $ 417 billion in American terms, which was already 44% of the US figure. That is, the Americans at that time had a gross domestic product of about $ 950 billion.
But the outbreak of the war hit the USSR economy much more painfully than the American one. This was due to the fact that the hostilities took place directly on the territory of the Soviet Union, and the United States fought only abroad. By the end of World War II, the USSR's GDP was only about 17% of the US gross product. But, again, after the recovery of production began, the gap between the economies of the two states began to rapidly narrow.
In 1950, the share of the USSR in world GDP was 9.6%. This was 35% of US GDP, that is, even lower than the pre-war level, but, nevertheless, much higher than the indicator of the first post-war year.
In subsequent years, the difference in the value of the gross products of the two superpowers, which by that time had become the USSR and the United States, decreased more and more, although not as fast as before. By 1970, Soviet GDP was about 40% of that of the United States, which was already quite an impressive figure.
Most of all, we are interested in the state of the economy of the USSR and the United States after 1970 until the end when the rivalry between them reached its maximum. Therefore, for this period, we will consider the GDP of the USSR by years. Then we will do the same with the gross domestic product of the United States. Well, in the final stage, let's compare these results.
USSR GDP for 1970 - 1990 in million dollars:
As you can see, in 1970 the gross domestic product in the USSR was $ 433.4 million. Until 1973, it grew to $ 617.8 million. The next year there was a slight drop, and then the growth resumed again. In 1980, GDP reached $ 940,000 million, but the next year was followed by a significant drop - $ 906,900 million. This situation was associated with a sharp drop in world oil prices. But, we must pay tribute to the fact that already in 1982, GDP resumed growth. In 1983, it reached its maximum - $ 993,000 million. This is the highest value of the gross domestic product during the entire existence of the Soviet Union.
But in subsequent years, an almost continuous decline began, which clearly characterized the state of the economy of the USSR at that time. The only episode of short-term growth occurred in 1986. The GDP of the USSR in 1990 amounted to $ 778.4 million. It was the seventh largest result in the world, and the total share of the Soviet Union in the world gross product was 3.4%. Thus, when compared with 1970, the gross product increased by $ 345,000 million, but at the same time, since 1982, fell by $ 559,600 million.
But here you need to take into account one more detail, the dollar, like any currency, is subject to inflation. Therefore, $ 778,400 million in 1990 in terms of 1970 prices will be equal to $ 1,092 million.As you can see, in this case, from 1970 to 1990, we will observe an increase in GDP in the amount of $ 658,600 million.
This is what we considered the value if we talk about GDP in terms of purchasing power parity, then in 1990 it amounted to 1971.5 billion dollars.
Now let's take a look at how much GDP of the USSR in the republics was in 1990, or rather, how much, in percentage terms, each subject of the Union put in the total piggy bank of gross income.
More than half of it was naturally brought in by the richest and most populous republic, the RSFSR. Its share was 60.33%. This was followed by the second most populated and third largest republic - Ukraine. The gross domestic product of this subject of the USSR was 17.8% of the all-Union one. The third largest republic is Kazakhstan (6.8%).
Other republics had the following indicators:
As you can see, the share of Russia in the composition of the all-Union GDP was greater than that of all the other republics taken together. At the same time, Ukraine and Kazakhstan also had a fairly high share of GDP. The rest of the subjects of the USSR - much less.
For a more complete picture, let's take a look at today's GDP. Let us determine whether the order of arrangement of the former Soviet republics has changed in terms of gross domestic product.
GDP size according to the IMF for 2015:
As we can see, Russia remains the undoubted leader in terms of GDP in the countries of the USSR. At the moment, its gross product is 1325 billion dollars, which in nominal terms is even more than it was in 1990 in the Soviet Union as a whole. Kazakhstan took the second place, ahead of Ukraine. Uzbekistan and Belarus also switched places. Azerbaijan and Lithuania remained in the same places where they were in Soviet times. But Georgia slipped noticeably, letting ahead of Turkmenistan, Latvia and Estonia. Moldova slipped to the last place among the post-Soviet countries. And she skipped ahead, Armenia, which was the last in Soviet times in terms of GDP, as well as Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.
Now let's take a look at the dynamics of changes in the US gross domestic product over the last period of the USSR from 1970 to 1990.
Dynamics of US GDP, million dollars:
As you can see, the nominal GDP of the United States, in contrast to the gross domestic product of the USSR, grew continuously from 1970 to 1990. Over 20 years, it has increased by $ 4,903,700 million.
Since we have already looked at the current state of the gross product level in the post-Soviet countries, we should find out how the United States is doing with this matter. According to the IMF, the value of US GDP in 2015 amounted to $ 17,947 billion, which is more than three times more than in 1990.
Also, this value is several times higher than the GDP of all post-Soviet countries combined, including Russia.
If we compare the level of GDP of the USSR and the USA for the period from 1970 to 1990, we will see that if in the case of the USSR, starting from 1982, the gross product began to decline, then in the United States it grew continuously.
In 1970, the gross product of the USSR was 40.3% of that of the States, and in 1990 it was only 13.0%. In real terms, the gap between the GDP of both countries reached 5,201,200 million dollars.
For reference: Russia's current GDP is only 7.4% of US GDP. That is, in this regard, the situation, in comparison with 1990, has become even more aggravated.
Throughout the existence of the USSR, its gross domestic product was significantly inferior in size to that of the United States. Even in the best years for the Soviet Union, it was about half the size of the American gross product. In the worst periods, namely after the Civil War and before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the level dropped to 13%.
An attempt to catch up with the United States in terms of economic development ended in failure, and in the early 90s of the last century, the USSR ceased to exist as a state. At the same time, in 1990 the situation with the ratio of the USSR GDP to the GDP of the United States was approximately at the level of the situation after the end of the Civil War.
The GDP level of modern Russia lags even further behind the American indicators than it was in 1990 for the USSR. But there are objective reasons for this, since the republics that made up the Soviet Union and also contributed to the piggy bank of the total GDP are not currently part of Russia.
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: “Here 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 went down, and even very much, while prices went up 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 country 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 professors, doctors, workers of artels and the military.
Of these groups, the highest income was for physicians: each member of their families had an average of 800 rubles a month. The smallest income among the categories of the urban population was for workers in industrial enterprises - 525 per month for each family member, for peasants this income was 350 rubles. [C-BLOCK]
After the abolition of the rationing system, the government significantly reduced the prices of food in stores, including those that did not belong to 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, a 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% \u200b\u200bper 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, pensions for collective farmers were first introduced, and 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. In 1956-60, more than 50 million citizens moved into their own apartments, albeit small-sized, - 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 conducting a favorable social policy began to dry up, a new round of the Cold War led to an increase in military spending, and economic failures began. Khrushchev's experiments in the national economy, which led to the outflow of a 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 came for agriculture, the oil and gas industry, and the 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 system of consumer cooperation from the population, while the 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.
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, the prices for food products, transport and utilities had been inflated 2-4 times. 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.
The state budget deficit, in other words, the excess of expenditures over revenues, was, according to various estimates, from 20% to 30% of the 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?
Officially, it is 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. Certain elements of it were adopted by absolutely all developed countries of the world. China, also grown according to the Soviet project, also achieved the greatest growth tampa. 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 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 scared to convulsions of the memory of the best - cleaner and more honest years. 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 head of the tax inspection 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 \u200b\u200bof 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 that are 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 very 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 standard of living.
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 \u200b\u200bof 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 craving for the involvement of the interests of ordinary people in the 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, destitute, ragged, downtrodden, illiterate, unspiritual parents of street children, which (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 frenzy with which the Bolsheviks themselves at one time destroyed the achievements of the Russian Empire.
The actual expenditures of the population in Russia are 3.5 times higher than in Ukraine in terms of per capita terms. The economic collapse in Ukraine since 2013 is much deeper than in Russia. In general, there has never been more than 3.5 times (before the latest events), for the last half a century for sure. Since 1990, the advantage of living standards in Russia over Ukraine has ranged from 2 to 3, with an average of 2.5.
Russia's advantage over Belarus is about 1.6 times, while a similar gap was present both in the mid-2000s and in the mid-90s. Those. For 20 years, the rates of economic growth relative to the consumption of the population in Russia and Belarus were comparable, despite massive multiple devaluations and three-digit inflation recently in Belarus.
Parity with Russia comes out with Kazakhstan. At the same time, since 2008, Kazakhstan has been growing 40-50% faster than Russia (relative to population consumption), and this is in conditions when the structure of the economy in Kazakhstan is similar and even more degenerative than in Russia (dependence on raw materials is higher there). For a quarter of a century, there has been the worst ratio between Russia and Kazakhstan. The same shitty ratio of living standards between these countries was only in 1998-1999.
As for the Czech Republic and Poland, per capita expenditures there are 1.8 and 1.5 times higher than in Russia. Correspondence levels of household spending in Russia versus the Czech Republic and Poland for 2016 are comparable to 2007-2009. It is noteworthy that in 1990 the RSFSR had two times better living conditions than in Poland, but worse than in the Czech Republic. The economic catastrophe in Russia in the 90s threw the standard of living far away, but from 2004 the income and expenses of the population in Russia grew faster than the Poles and Czechs until 2013. The strongest crisis in Russia (2014-2016) since 1998 threw the entire Russian handicap back a decade ago regarding Poland and the Czech Republic.
The calculation of indicators is very simple. All actual expenditures of the population on goods and services are taken from the national accounts (the main component of GDP) and divided by the average number of the population for the year.
If we take into account purchasing power parity, then the conclusions and trends are unchanged. But the levels are different. The gap between Russia and Ukraine is not 3.5 times, but 2.6 times due to the fact that prices in Ukraine are lower than Russian ones (mainly for services). Between Belarus, Russia's advantage is not 1.6 times, but 1.3 times. With Kazakhstan about the same, and with the Czech Republic and Poland, the gap is smaller.
Of all the countries of the former USSR and CMEA, the best standard of living is Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. The level is approximately comparable and is somewhere 1.8-2 times better than the Russian one. Poland lags behind them a little.
After the collapse of the ruble, the purchasing power of imports in Russia is lower than in Hungary and even Romania, but slightly more than in Bulgaria. However, per capita spending in Russia is still higher than in any CIS country, even in spite of the economic collapse. The poorest country from the CIS is Kyrgyzstan, followed by Uzbekistan and Ukraine, and somewhere near them Tajikistan.
In dollars, the annual expenses in Russia are about 4.8 thousand dollars per person in 2016 (310 thousand rubles) - this is the same as in 2007.
Why didn't I apply PPP here? Yes, simply because in the store you will not be able to buy anything for PPP. 99% (literally) of all technological goods in your home and up to 95% of clothes and shoes are not produced in Russia or in the specified countries. Therefore, purchasing power more than directly depends on the exchange rate of the national currency and no PPPs need to be applied here. If the exchange rate falls by half, then you can buy about half the amount of imports. But even if we compare it in terms of PPP, then Russia has no gain. On the contrary, the gaps between poor countries are getting smaller.
But on the whole, as can be seen over the long term, the rates of economic growth and the wealth of the population in Russia (if at all, the wealth for these countries) is equalized with its friends, neighbors. Byelorussia and Kazakhstan have exactly leveled off. In this respect, no economic miracle has happened since the early 2000s, when compared with the closest competitors. All of them grew, plus minus, at the same rate.
Of course, I did not take developed countries, this is another galaxy, what is there to compare?))
Related articles: | |
Win-win lottery in verse
Why is the anniversary so wonderful? The fact that the house of friends is full. Lots of toasts, games, ... Vocabulary dvacha What is soot dvach
Even if you have been surfing the Internet for ten years like ... Means and methods of dealing with snails in the garden
Seemingly harmless snails loved by children, but in fact - one of ... |