Ryu,
In order not to be unsubstantiated, here are excerpts (but still long read
) from a good analyses dated 2018 (though they don’t mention that Rosstat just before the reform ‘draw’ out of the blue 2+ years to a life expectancy figure-in an attempt to justify it; but strangely another ‘go’ just happend-could the government prepare some new ‘surprises’?
).
A third of 50-year-old men will not live to retire, or what the Government is silent about (graphs are inside an article).
The sensational decision to significantly raise the retirement age in Russia in the Government is justified by an even more significant increase in the average life expectancy at birth (OPJ). So, since 2000 it has grown by 8 years for men – up to 67 years and by 5 years for women – up to 77 years. The same applies to the average life expectancy after reaching retirement age. If in 2000 men aged 60 on average had to live for 13 years, then in 2017 it was already 16 years. Women at 55 are not 22 years old, but 26 years old. However, a deeper analysis shows that the Government's arguments are too simplistic, the evidence base is stretched, and in some cases there is simply manipulation of figures in order to justify a deliberately made decision. What is being kept silent in the pension reform and what are the convincing objections to the arguments of the Government – in the material Накануне.RU .
The government initially linked the increase in the retirement age with the growth of OPJ.
No one hides the fact that the decision to raise the retirement age was made due to the fact that the workable population is decreasing, and the number of pensioners is growing, and this needs to be compensated somehow. The words that the main goal of the pension reform is to increase pensions, as stated, for example, by the Minister of Labor and Social Protection of Russia Maxim Topilin, are a substitution of the reason for the goal. Whatever goals are set, it is important that the reasons are primarily demographic in nature.
If the Government said that the retirement age is rising due to the fact that there are fewer workable people, so it is necessary to throw resources at increasing the birth rate in order to replenish the workable population over time, then it would be difficult to object to this. In addition, such a position would be extremely honest and unifying society. At least, it calls for understanding and unity. However, this is out of the question, although just because of the catastrophically low birth rate, the workable population is rapidly declining (mine-last year we passed the lowest mark of birthrate in modern history-it can be compared only with the 1943 -a middle of Great patriotic war; this year will decrease even futher
).
The government, from the very beginning, chose the way to justify the increase in the retirement age by reducing mortality and increasing OPJ. That is, you have begun to live longer – be kind or work longer, or not work, but you will receive a pension later. Let's pay attention to the argument itself – it is individualistic in nature: an individual lives longer on average. Then raising the retirement age is what, payback? Or the return of the "busy"? How would the state lend a few years of life so that a person could work as much more? It turns out that this is so, if we proceed from the logic of "live longer – retire later." Namely, this logic is used by the Government. The reasons (the deterioration of the demographic balance) were replaced by a goal (to increase pensions) and a reason (they began to live longer). However, in addition to the logical ones, there are also convincing demographic objections. And they are connected with the fact that the Government does not say much.
Half of dying men die before the age of 65!
The main argument of the authorities is an increase in OPJ. Really great successes have been achieved here. Since the beginning of the 2000s, it has grown by almost 8 years and is now 72 years old.
It should also be borne in mind that if the population structure in Russia was the same as in the EU, where there are more elderly people, then the overall mortality in Russia would be much worse. It is somewhat inhibited by a younger population. However, the young die unacceptably often. As stated in the report of the head of the Ministry of Economic Development Maxim Oreshkin, in 2015 in Russia the mortality rate of men aged 15-60 years was 322 per 1,000 deaths (according to Rosstat – 381), while in "developed European countries" – about 100.
Finally, another proof that life in Russia is not very long is such an indicator as the average age of death (SVM). It is not given by Rosstat, and in general it is practically not used in demographic science, since it depends not only on mortality, but also on the age structure of the population. That is, the greater the proportion of the old population, the higher this age will be, so it is not so "objective". However, the SVM still gives a considerable idea of the mortality rate and life expectancy, at least by virtue of its clarity. If the OPJ says how long those born will live in the future while maintaining the current mortality rate at all ages, then the SVM refers to those who are dying now. The informative value of this indicator is already illustrated by the fact that in the EU, where the age structure is different, the CBM is 3-4 years lower than the OPJ, as in Russia. This is how the CBM has changed in Russia since 1990 (calculated based on the number of age cohorts and mortality rates in them).
For men, the SVM has reached only 63 years, that is, it is two years less than the new retirement age. In this respect, the situation is reminiscent of the 90s and early 2000s, when men's SVM was less than 60 years old. For women, everything is much better: SVM is 74 years old. This means that retired women will have to live much longer than men. For comparison: in the EU, SVM is 74.5 years for men and 81 years for women.
This example not only shows that in Russia men lag behind women in life expectancy much more than in the EU, but also poses a fundamental problem that experts are just beginning to talk about.
Retirement age should take into account a person's demographic contribution
We are talking about making the retirement age dependent on both the monetary contribution to the maintenance of the pension system (deductions from wages) and demographic (the number of children born). In fact, why is the amount of payments to the pension fund taken into account, but demographic "payments" are not? After all, the future provision of the pension system is just as important as the current one. And here's what it wrote about the day before.
The authorities do not comment on this idea in any way, although it literally suggests itself if the stable functioning of the pension system is a long-term goal. At the same time, it can be said that it does not contradict the liberal ideology of the authorities and even fits into it. So, the other day the State Duma rejected in the second reading the bill of 2003 on "gender equality". Commenting on this decision, the chairman of the State Duma Vyacheslav Volodin suggested focusing on the protection of women's labor rights. According to him, it is necessary to develop a new version of the law "On state guarantees of the rights and freedoms of men and women and equal opportunities for their implementation."
"First of all, it concerns remuneration: sometimes the very possibility that a woman could potentially go on maternity leave becomes an obstacle to her promotion and when determining the amount of her salary," he said.
It's hard to argue with that. The current system almost pushes women to work, forcing them to abandon their children, that is, it just aggravates the reason why there is not enough working population - low birth rate. This would satisfy both childless feminists who want to be equal to men and work on an equal footing with them, and those who want to be women, wives and mothers and thanks to whom Russia is replenished with people.
For example, Boris Kagarlitsky, director of the Institute of Globalization and Social Movements, notes, the authorities have exhausted the old ways of stimulating the birth rate, but have not used the new ones, and one of the reasons is the inertia of thinking.
For example, in China, the population will begin to decline at the end of the 2020s, and this is almost inevitable, as wrote back in 2014, but the Chinese authorities have already lifted the restriction on the birth of a second child in the family for two years, which had been in effect for several decades. This is unlikely to prevent accelerating aging and impending depopulation, but it will definitely reduce their negative consequences.
In Russia, they are waiting for the thunder to strike. Although everyone is already saying that literally this year the population of Russia will go down again. In particular, this is stated in the July report of the RANEPA "Monitoring the economic situation in Russia". Therefore, the authorities should set the task on a larger scale, and not just "where to find money for retirement in the coming years." The current moment is a test of historical maturity. Will the authorities and society be able to understand that the problem of pensions is ultimately part of a common problem – Russia's survival in the future?
What is the Government keeping silent about?
Of the boys born last year, only 59% will live to the age of 65 (provided that mortality remains at last year's level).
51% of men from the total number of deceased now die before the age of 65.
The proportion of men dying before retirement age in Russia is three times higher than in the EU, and women – twice.
The average age of death of men in Russia is only 63 years.
(mine-just before the Duma was forced to pass the bill-i saw a report of Deputy - as i mentioned in the above post, till 60 years ‘survive’ only 50% of men in half of russian regions. And if we take the covid/vaccines and all related deadly rates-that evaluation for that moment -will obviously worsen. That also in no way could explain where Rosstat got this time another 2+ years
).
Yandex
#France In Paris, meanwhile, there are street battles with the police again.
t.me
and being replaced by gastarbeiters (guest workers from CIS-that manipulation of figures allows to hide the terrible decrease of population).
️More than half of men in Russia do not live to 65 years — Chief specialist of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation on reproductive Health Oleg Apolikhin:
, agency reacted the next day (as i remember - yesterday) with ‘astonishing’ 2,5 years plus to life ‘span’ - but last couple of covid years we had around minus 1 million people a year, officially
#Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in an address to fellow citizens, announced that "judicial reform is suspended until the summer": 
