Where was the economy of the USSR. Countries of the former USSR in HDI. Comparison of economic indicators before World War II

The actual expenses of the population in Russia are 3.5 times higher than in Ukraine in per capita terms. The economic collapse in Ukraine since 2013 is significantly deeper than in Russia. In general, there has never been higher than 3.5 times (before recent events), for sure over the past half century. Since 1990, the advantage of living standards in Russia over Ukraine has fluctuated from 2 to 3, with an average of 2.5.

Over Belarus, the advantage of Russia is about 1.6 times, while a similar gap was present both in the mid-2000s and in the mid-90s. Those. over 20 years the pace economic growth in terms of household consumption in Russia and Belarus were comparable, despite massive multiple devaluations and recent triple-digit inflation in Belarus.

With Kazakhstan comes parity with Russia. At the same time, since 2008, Kazakhstan has been growing 40-50% faster than Russia (relative to the consumption of the population), 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, the worst ratio between Russia and Kazakhstan has been observed. The same shitty ratio of the standard of living between these countries was only in 1998-1999.

As for the Czech Republic and Poland, the per capita expenditures of the population are 1.8 and 1.5 times higher than in Russia. Matching 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 twice Better conditions life than in Poland, but worse than in the Czech Republic. The economic catastrophe in Russia in the 90s threw off the standard of living, but since 2004 the income and expenses of the population in Russia grew faster than the Poles and Czechs until 2013. The worst crisis in Russia (2014-2016) since 1998 threw the entire Russian handicap back a decade regarding Poland and the Czech Republic.

The calculation of indicators is very simple. It takes all the actual expenditures of the population on goods and services from the national accounts (the main component of GDP) and divides it by the average number of the population for the year.

If taking 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 in Russia (mainly for services). Between Belarus, the advantage of Russia is not 1.6 times, but 1.3 times. It is about the same with Kazakhstan, but with the Czech Republic and Poland the gap is smaller.


Of all the countries of the former USSR and CMEA, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovakia and the Czech Republic have the best standard of living. The level is approximately comparable and somewhere 1.8-2 times better than the Russian one. Poland is a little behind them.

After the collapse of the ruble, the purchasing power of imports in Russia is lower than in Hungary and even Romania, but quite a bit more than Bulgaria. However, per capita spending in Russia is still higher than in any CIS country, even despite the economic collapse. The most poor country from the CIS - Kyrgyzstan, in second place are Uzbekistan and Ukraine, and somewhere near them Tajikistan.


In dollars, annual spending in Russia is about 4.8 thousand dollars per person in 2016 (310 thousand rubles) - this is the same as in 2007.

Why didn't I use PPP here? Yes, simply because in the store you can not buy anything for PPP. 99% (literally) of all technological goods in your home and up to 95% of clothes and shoes are not made in Russia or in the countries indicated. Therefore, purchasing power is more than directly dependent on the exchange rate national currency and there is no need to apply any PPS here. If the rate falls by half, then you can buy about half as much imports. But even when compared by PPP, Russia has no gain. On the contrary, the gaps between poor countries are getting smaller.

But in general, as can be seen in the long term, the rates of economic growth and the wealth of the population in Russia (if at all the wealth in relation to these countries) are aligned with their friends and neighbors. By Belarus and Kazakhstan exactly aligned. In this regard, no economic miracle has occurred since the beginning of the 2000s, when compared with its closest competitors. All grew plus or minus at the same pace.

Of course, I didn’t take developed countries, this is a different galaxy, what is there to compare?))

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 a similar UN ranking, the Baltic states occupy places in the fourth or 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 - in the twelfth ten.

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

It is officially believed that the "Soviet project" failed because the USSR collapsed. Iron logic, but only for a poorly educated person. The state collapsed. Moreover, not by itself, but thanks to decades of much more powerful states working for this. The project itself is just alive. Separate elements of it were adopted by absolutely everything the developed countries peace. China, also grown according to the Soviet project, also achieved the greatest growth rates. Vietnam is alive and well developing, Cuba is alive despite everything with the legendary Castro.

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

And this means that the "Soviet project" is alive. Recognizing this is unprofitable for any government, except perhaps the Russian one. For the leadership of any post-Soviet power, this is a deadly trend. For Russia - rather the opposite. But Russia has been living by its own laws for thousands of years.

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

In fact, it is the process of a normal and adequate assessment of the past that is going on. Recognition of real 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 Great Patriotic War and created a nuclear shield, became world leaders in many respects, and even post-war cards were canceled ten years earlier than the British. Under Khrushchev, we were the first to go into space and resettled 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 for the population.

This means that the "Soviet project" is not the borders on the map, the country has not disintegrated just some 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 (most of them just 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 rushed to bury the "judges of time".

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

No Stalinist innocent victims or victims of political repression of the entire Soviet period can be compared with how many people were killed in the vast expanses 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 more intelligent Professor Khasbulatov, the only Chechen who has reached such heights and betrayed everyone and everything. From the USSR to their fellow tribesmen. They would not have been born like that as a result of the collapse of the USSR. Tens of millions were killed, died of starvation 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 can be compared with 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 it, it's already a cut piece.

In other words, today's popularity of the "Soviet project" is not a desire to return the USSR in its former form (this is simply impossible), but that truly good, high and valuable thing 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.

Lots of letters!
Since a person's brains are beaten off by propaganda, he considered it useful to return to the topic.

Before comparing, I would like to note one extremely significant circumstance that the elves are not able to comprehend categorically. The USSR only as a result of the German attack lost in 1941-1945 about a third of the national wealth. In material terms, this is the following:
The regions of the USSR that were under temporary occupation occupied, on the eve of the Patriotic War, a significant specific gravity: in population - 45%, in gross industrial output - 33, in sown areas - 47, in livestock (in terms of cattle) - 45 and in the length of railways - 55%.

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

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

Destroyed, destroyed or stolen by the German invaders and their accomplices on the territory of the USSR, subjected to occupation, 175 thousand machine tools, 34 thousand hammers and presses, 2,700 cutters, 15 thousand jackhammers, 5 million kilowatts of power plant capacity, 62 blast furnaces , 213 open-hearth furnaces, 45 thousand looms and 3 million spinning spindles. Material damage was inflicted on the most valuable fixed industrial assets of the USSR.

Of the 122,000 km of railway track that was occupied on the territory of the USSR before the war, 65,000 km were destroyed and looted by the invaders. 15,800 locomotives and 428,000 wagons were damaged. The occupiers destroyed, sank and seized 4,280 passenger, cargo and towing steamers of river transport and vessels of the technical auxiliary fleet and 4,029 non-self-propelled ships. Of the 26,000 railway bridges, 13,000 were destroyed. All 2,078,000 km of telegraph and telephone communication lines in the occupied regions of the USSR were destroyed or stolen by the German occupiers.

The housing stock of the population of the USSR was subjected to barbaric destruction by means of explosions and arson. Of the 2,567 thousand residential buildings in the cities of the USSR that were occupied, 1,209 thousand houses were destroyed and destroyed, and in terms of living space, this number of houses accounted for over 50% of the entire urban living area of ​​these cities. Out of 12 million residential buildings rural population in the regions of the USSR that were occupied, 3.5 million residential buildings were destroyed and destroyed by the German invaders.
There was nothing close in the USA. On the contrary, due to the war, the United States doubled its GDP.

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

The second point that should be kept in mind is the difference in the structure of incomes in the USSR and the USA.

Based on this distribution, the median annual income of an American household today is about $50,000.
We see, however, that this distribution has two pronounced humps: the "lower class" with incomes below 100,000 and the "upper class" with incomes over 100,000. The "upper class" makes up approximately 13% of the population. The distribution of income in the USSR had a different character: there was no “upper class” in the USSR in terms of size, and the proportion of high-income families decreased evenly and rapidly.

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

With this circumstance in mind, it would be more correct to compare the standard of living of a Soviet middle-income family with the standard of living of an American middle-income family. It is easy to recalculate that the average annual household income, after subtracting the "top peak" of the distribution, in the United States does not actually exceed $40,000.

It is with this figure that we must compare the standard of living of the average Soviet family, which in 1980 received, as you know, with two workers about 340 rubles a month (average wage- 170 rubles per month for a worker), or, exactly, about 4,000 rubles a year. That is, at face value in 2007-2008, the income of the average American family, expressed in dollars, is exactly 10 times more than the nominal income of the average Soviet family in 1980.

it nominal comparison, however, should be supplemented by an analysis of the comparative real purchasing power of the modern dollar and the Soviet ruble in 1980, specifically in terms of household consumption.
Comparison of domestic purchasing power of the ruble and the dollar.

Compulsory spending and their shares in consumption.

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

1. Housing expenses

2. Compulsory transport costs

3. Food expenses

4. Clothes expenses

The first three categories are the most easily comparable, since they do not depend on climate and are "everyday". Expenditures on clothing are close to those on durable items, since despite the relatively high “one-off” price, clothing is spent for a long time and its weight in everyday expenses is relatively small.

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

Housing

The price of housing in the USSR. 1980 Rental.

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

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

3. The average price of electricity is 0.02 rubles. per kilowatt hour

4. Gas - unlimited use - 2 rubles per month

5. Heating - 2 rubles per month.

The price of housing in the USA. year 2009. Rent.

1. The price of renting a “1-bedroom” apartment is at least $700 outside major cities. The popular site www.realtor.com for Alexandria (a suburb of Washington) lists a $900 minimum price for a 590 sq. ft. (less than 50 sq. meters) apartment. In the sub-$1,000 range, only 15 offers were found for approximately one million suburbs.
http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Alexandria_VA/beds-1/baths-1/price-na-1000/type-rentals?sby=1

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

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

4. The price of electricity - the average for the US - $ 0.11 per kilowatt-hour

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

The total cost of housing in the USSR for a two-room apartment is about 25 rubles per month.

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

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

Transport.

The need to consider transport as mandatory expenses connected with a simple fact: in order to receive income, you need to at least get to work.
Here again we are faced with a fundamentally different structure of consumption.

IN THE USA public transport, with the exception of large cities, is practically absent. Whereas work is often removed from the place of residence not a dozen, but even tens of miles. Therefore, we turn first to the comparison of transport costs in large cities.

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

New York 2009. There is no trolleybus or tram transport in New York. Bus routes are limited to delivering passengers to metro stations. As far as I know, there are no routes independent of the metro. The price of a monthly pass for the metro and bus is $80.

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

Transport conversion factor:

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

Food.

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

A single meal in the cheapest US mass network McDonald's in the form of a sandwich with salad, cutlet, fried french fries and a glass of "soda", that is, carbonated water, is $6-7.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The third way of recalculation is by the cost of food per family per month.

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

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

Clothing.

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

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

Conclusions.

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

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

Thus, the apparent difference between the standard of living in the USA and the USSR is connected solely with the unjustified comparison of the life of the AVERAGE SOVIET PERSON WITH THE STANDARD OF LIVING OF AMERICANS IN THE HIGH INCOME GROUP AND WITH THE DIFFERENCE OF PAY PRIORITIES, because people with higher education in the USSR were not necessarily included in the higher Soviet income group (so, for example, the average salary in science in 1980 was in fourth place after the construction of transport and industry), while in the United States the highest income group is largely made up of people with higher education.

In other words, workers in the USSR lived NO WORSE, if not better, than similar workers in the United States, while the intelligentsia in the USSR, unlike the United States, did not fall into the highest income group.

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

This is the real, not elven, reality.

This does not mean that there were no problems in the USSR. But the course of perestroika itself showed that they were minimal. For the notorious deficit today owing to the increase in prices in the Russian Federation has disappeared, despite the fact that people's consumption has decreased in absolutely all respects, and, for example, in meat - by almost half. Except maybe cars.

Behind the obviousness of the data presented, no one, except for comrades who did not understand anything, dared to refute them. The only housing-related addition that needs to be made is the following. Two people made the following statement: in the United States, “the majority of the population owns houses,” and young people do not live with their parents.

According to the first thesis, I want to remind famous saying F. Engels: “If a shoe brush is classified as a mammal, its mammary glands will not grow from this.”

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

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

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

In other words, "home ownership" is practically pure wiring.

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

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

The second remark is, of course, the notorious deficit that was in the USSR and which is not in the USA.
Although this is essentially incorrect, since in 1980 products, and everything else, could be completely freely bought on the market, but people DID NOT WANT this, since they were looking for everything in stores at a state-appointed, and not market price, there are more important misunderstanding of this issue.
Namely: a shortage on store shelves is inconvenient, but does not mean POVERTY in the sense of low consumption. On the contrary, full counters are comfortable, but do not mean wealth at all.

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

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

This is no excuse for scarcity, of course. But, this is a clear indication that scarcity and wealth - that is, the standard of living - are things that lie on qualitatively different planes.

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

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

The third type of comment is most interesting: well, you proved that in terms of satisfaction of basic needs, we see that the average resident of the USSR lived at least as well as the average resident of the United States (with the exception of the "upper class"), but the standard of living in many respects it is defined just by "luxury". What a person can afford beyond basic needs.

As we have seen, taking into account the proportionality in the main costs, average income per family of a Soviet person in 1980 is approximately equal to the income of the average American in 2008 (if the American "upper class" is excluded from consideration). Consequently, “free balances are also approximately proportional and one can directly compare the conversion factors for individual forms of application of this balance.

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

For example, it is absolutely impossible to compare the absolutely free and exceptionally high-quality Soviet higher education with paid and very expensive higher education in the USA, which is actually a master's level. How many times is the ruble higher than the dollar in the field of higher education, if a year at a very average university in the United States costs $30,000 (the course is 150,000), at prestigious universities it costs 60,000 and more (the course is $250,000-300,000) - and this does not include housing costs , whereas education in Soviet universities was not only free, but a scholarship of 40-45 rubles was also issued and a place in a hostel cost about 3-5 rubles a month?

How can children's education be compared if a week-long specialized summer camp, say, with "advanced mathematics" costs an American about $ 1,000, while annual classes in any circle or any number of circles in the Houses (Palace) of Pioneers, in the Houses of Culture did not cost at all nothing?

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

With scientific and technical literature, which was in great abundance in the USSR - both domestic and translated, the coefficient is even higher. If in the USSR the price of such books rarely exceeded 3 rubles (the main price range is 1.50-2.50), literature of a similar class in the USA costs tens and often hundreds of dollars.
In other words, everything related to HUMAN SELF-IMPROVEMENT in the USSR was DOZENS, if not hundreds of times cheaper and, therefore, more accessible.

Moral: Coefficient of at least 20.

But there is an objective point, according to which the USSR was definitely “losing” to the USA in terms of the coefficient - these are items ... let's say, not essential.

Here, it looks like the conversion factor is about 1-2: one 1980 Soviet ruble is about 1-2 modern dollars in this part. Approximately the same coefficient, according to my observations, is fair in relation to some types of clothing and footwear. In other words, non-primary necessities cost a Soviet person five to ten times more in relation to wages than they cost a modern American.

Given the inflation of the dollar over the past 30 years, it is likely that 1 dollar in 1980 in terms of purchasing power in terms of this category of consumption really equaled 4-5 rubles of the same 1980, which approximately corresponds to the black market price of that time.

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

General conclusion:

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

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

WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT, EVERYONE CHOOSE FOR YOURSELF.

The USSR was not the best state system in the history of mankind, but compared to post-Sovietism, it seems to many to be simply heavenly. But what about from an objective point of view?
I will only say the following: according to the statistics of the USSR, in terms of the standard of living of the country's population, it ranked seventh in the world, and modern post-Soviet Russia ranks 148th. That's the whole story about "perestroika" and its fruits. For details on the world standard of living in the countries of the world, see the description and tables below. Here are some specific statistics that speak for themselves: Rating of countries by standard of living The rating is current as of 11/30/06 For the sixth year in a row, Norway holds the title of the best country in the world to live in. The average life expectancy in this Scandinavian country is 79.6 years, the entire adult population has an average or higher education, and GDP, calculated at purchasing power parity, is 38.4 thousand dollars per year for every Norwegian. When compiling the rating, the following factors were taken into account: life expectancy, level of education and GDP per capita (according to purchasing power parity). Such studies have been carried out annually by a group of independent scientists commissioned by UNDP since 1990. The HDI (Human Development Index) is the main indicator on the basis of which countries are ranked in terms of living standards. The ranking includes indicators for 117 countries, including Hong Kong (China) and Palestine (Occupied Palestinian Territories), for 2004 (collection and processing of information takes about a year and a half). However, for 17 UN Member States, the HDI index has not been established because sufficient data has not been collected for them.
Ranking of countries by standard of living


Iceland and Australia took the second and third places with a minimum margin from the leader. The average life expectancy of the islanders is 80 years, and this important indicator, as GDP per capita, is 33 thousand dollars per year for every inhabitant of Iceland and 30 thousand dollars for every Australian. Independent experts recognized 63 states as countries with a high standard of living. top ten best countries Ireland, Sweden, Canada (the leader of the rating from 1993 to 2000), Japan, the USA, Switzerland and the Netherlands were included. Of the countries of the former USSR, only the Baltic countries overtake Russia in terms of living standards: GDP per capita in Estonia is 14.5 thousand dollars per year (40th place), Latvia - 11.6 thousand dollars (45th) and Lithuania - 13.7 thousand dollars (41). 82 states became countries with an average level of development. The top three in this group are Libya, Russia and Macedonia. The standard of living in Russia is steadily falling: this year our country took 65th place (last year it was 62, and a year earlier - 57). Of the countries of the former USSR, living conditions are worse, worse than in the Russian Federation, in Belarus - 67th place, Ukraine - 77th place, Kazakhstan - 79th, Armenia - 80th, Georgia - 97th and Azerbaijan - 99th. The second group also included such world economic giants like Brazil (69th) and China (81st). In the group of countries with low level life experts placed 29 African countries and one island - Haiti. Countries uninhabitable, according to the rating, are African countries Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Mali. Valeria Volokhova Source of tables: RBC, UN

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

Location of members of the Commonwealth of Independent States

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

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

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

• cash income population (minimum and average wages).
• Social security of the population.
• The unemployment rate.
• The level of crime.
• Ecological condition.
• The development of culture.
• political stability.
• Satisfaction of residents with the development of their country.

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

Work in the CIS countries is paid differently. Leading in the CIS by . Pretty good and high. The situation is worst in Tajikistan (Table 3).

You can find it on our website.

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

Regulation of pension issues

They often wonder if they can receive a pension in the territory of the Russian Federation. In this case, they are usually guided by laws, which stipulate all issues in this direction.

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

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

Citizens of the CIS countries, according to the 1992 Agreement, arriving in the Russian Federation, have the opportunity to receive pension payments according to the length of service acquired in the USSR before March 13, 1992, or after this date in the countries participating in the Agreement. The work experience obtained in the territory of the states that signed the Agreement is equated to the insurance experience.

The amount of pensions in the CIS countries

In the first place in terms of average pensions are Russia, Uzbekistan and Belarus. Citizens of certain countries do not even receive $100. Most of the people receiving pension payments per 1,000 people are in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. The possible retirement age ranges from 55 to 63 for women and from 60 to 63 for men (Table 1).

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

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

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

Table 2. Average monthly pension in Russia

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

In Azerbaijan, social pensions are paid in the amount of $60, - $45, - $33, in Belarus - $112.

Housing prices in the CIS countries in 2019-2020

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

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

Most best cities for life in the CIS countries: Almaty, Moscow, Minsk, Baku and Bishkek. In terms of general indicators of the value of taxes, real estate with high profitability, the level of education, the cost of medical care, the city of Almaty takes the lead. In terms of income of residents, the first three cities are Moscow, Almaty and Minsk. Read about on our website.

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

Compliance with consumer rights in the CIS

All CIS countries, with the exception of the Republic of Belarus, have decided to assign consumer protection rights to already existing structural units. Only in Belarus new state structures for consumer protection have been created.

An example of a harmonious antitrust law in the field of consumer protection rights is Ukraine. The economic code of this country determines that, as a state, it must protect the rights and interests of business entities and consumers.

Food prices

Average statistical prices for foodstuffs in the CIS countries (in terms of the dollar) do not have a significant difference (Table 5). But if we consider them from the point of view of the average salary, then the situation is a little different (Table 3 in the section Level of average salary in the CIS and table 5).

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