Russia's demographic 'devastation'

[Cold Warrior]

A new study says Russia's demographic 'devastation' has left it facing increasing crisis. Tom Parfitt reports

Thursday December 29, 2005

Boris Vasiliev stomped down the snow-covered track that is the main street of his village and paused outside a dilapidated single-storey building.
"That used to be the doctor's surgery," he said, and then pointed back the way he had come. "Down there was the shop. A bit further, the social club."
Either side of the track were two long lines of empty wooden cottages. Buyavino, in the Tver region 130 miles north of Moscow, is one of tens of thousands of Russian villages slowly dying out as the country faces an alarming decline in its population.





When Guardian Unlimited visited earlier this year, Mr Vasiliev, a 58-year-old forestry worker, was the youngest person in the village and the only one with a job.
"Once there was a family in every one of these 50 houses," he said. "Now there are just 13 of us left."
Nearby fields, which had been full of carefully tended crops a few years ago, were overrun with weeds in summer. Two of the villagers did nothing but drink, Mr Vasiliev said. The son of another had recently died from a heroin overdose.


While millions have abandoned Russia's villages to seek a better life in the cities, the country's high mortality rate has taken a punishing toll on places such as Buyavino.


Alcoholism, tuberculosis and Aids - as well as road accidents, suicides and other unnatural causes of death - are eroding the population at an alarming speed.


Circulatory diseases, exacerbated by stress, are a major killer. Life expectancy for a man has sunk to 58 years (72 for women), the lowest bar two of the 52 countries in the WHO European region.
Russia's population has plummeted by almost 7% to 143 million in the last 15 years, and is predicted to drop by another 20 million by 2025. And as Moscow gears up to take over the presidency of the G8 on January 1, the Kremlin is being urged to meet the crisis head on.

In a report published last week, Delovaya Rossiya, a business lobby group, predicted that the country would lose an astonishing $400bn (£232bn) in the next two decades if it failed to tackle the population dive.
Inadequate government efforts to encourage immigration, support young families and promote healthy eating are having a disastrous effect on President Vladimir Putin's oft-repeated desire to double GDP, it said.


In another study published earlier this month, the World Bank concluded that Russia would never compete with the other G8 countries if it did not address its health deficit and demographic decline.
The study, titled Dying Too Young, warned that Russia's demographic "devastation" was unprecedented among industrialised nations and threatened to shave billions off its GDP.
The World Bank put much of the blame on high rates of heart disease and other non-communicable diseases that could be mitigated by improved healthcare.


The authors of the Delovaya Rossiya report suggest that only drastic measures - such as a 2% tax on families without children - could stem the population slump.


Andrei Korovkin, a labour resources expert, said: "The deficit of labour is already being noticed. Even with a pessimistic view of economic growth, by 2010 it will become the most serious fact limiting the development of Russian industry."
Kirill Ekonomov, a demographer, thought immediate measures were needed to stimulate the birth rate. "The level of state support to parents is miserly," he said. "Even couples who want children cannot afford to do so."


There have been some encouraging signs, however. In September, Mr Putin promised an extra $4bn for spending next year on four key areas - education, healthcare, housing and agriculture. An amnesty is expected for immigrants from the former Soviet countries who live in Russia with uncertain status.
Yet outside cities and towns, healthcare services remain thinly spread.


"If you get sick with something serious when the road is blocked by snow, then you might as well go straight to the cemetery," said 72-year-old Anna Boloshina, who lives opposite Buyavino's abandoned "medpunkt" (a one-doctor surgery).
Ten miles from the village, in the city of Tver, Lyudmila Titova - the regional chairman of Goskomstat, the federal state statistics service - showed graphs illustrating the plunge in the local population.


"This is our tragedy," she said. "The decline in industry, the closure of factories, the uncertainty of the period of reforms, the inflation, the poverty - all those things contributed to high mortality."
However, demographers insist low birthrate remains the overriding factor in the population decrease, and can only be changed by stimulating business.


"The recent collapse of fertility in Russia has been almost completely economic," Carl Haub, a researcher at the Washington-based Population Research Bureau, said. "When people are uncertain about the future, they don't have children."

[andrewfi]

There have been many pieces about this topic over the past few years. The decliine figures given are from the low end of three WHO scenarios, just to make the article more interesting. That is not to say there is no problem, but it is not quite the same problem as the 'surface issue'. A clue to the missed point appears in the final sentence of the piece.

Carl Haub has not been doing much reading, or remembering. He is exactly back to front in his sugegstion. During times of uncertainty (and poverty) birth rates increase. Children have, historically, been the retirement pension of the poor. Birth rates decline during periods of time when the need for children declines. Such periods occur when there is good retirement provision by the state, or when the responsibilities of adults are not great. They also occur when there are significant increases in real wealth.

So, there is a demographic problem in Russia, indeed most of the FSU. It comes from:

Health, male life expectancy among the poor has been falling. Among the educated and 'not poor' life expectancy is significantly higher, indeed similar to western Europe. The same pattern as is found in other countries at a similar stage of development as Russia, such as Mexico or Chile. This situation has already begun to ameliorate, but the improvement process would take many years, even if all Russians magically had stress free lives and immediate access to the best health care. Again, to understand better the processes, look at the countries of South America where there are several other countries in a similar state of development to Russia.

The second issue refers back to the reasons for not having kids. During postwar Soviet times life was for most in the FSU stable, secure and with improving living standards and relatively little personal responsibility. There was no need to have kids! The state provided very well for its old. Life, for many Russians did go through a very significant upheaval during the 1990's, culminating in the devaluation of the rouble in 1998, during these few years, it is likely that people would have put off childrearing, realising that the problems were short term, but also, people were not in the habit of having children. A few years is simply not enough to turn around the habits of three or four generations!

Now, there is a compounding of the issue. Incomes and standards of living are rising and rapidly, particularly for the young - the ones who are moving to the cities. Women are putting off having kids until their late 20's, but they are now having them. What has happened is that people have been spending money on new consumer goods, working to get decent jobs and promotions; just as in the west. The result has been a delay in breeding of about 8 years. That process is now ending and birth rates are now showing signs of turning around. All that has happened is that Russia, indeed the whole FSU has, within the space of a decade, done what has happened in the rest of Europe and the US over a period of half a century! It is likely that, as in the US and Europe, birth rates will remain low, but as in several European countries, the government will artificially stimulate breeding through economic measures - bribes, but even without such measures, birth rates will rise.

Rural depopulation is not a solely Russian issue, it is a problem in the USA and Europe (particularly France). What the writer of the article wrote could be written about English or Welsh hill farming communities, or of the Midi in France. There is simply more opportunity in the cities and as productivity increases, no need to farm marginally productive land. That this is happening can be seen as a good thing, after all, why would we want to imprison people in boring, unstimulating lives for the sake of the bucolic fantasies of urban dwelling office workers?

Russia does have problems, but this article, like many others, misses the point because it was written without knowledge, simply copying a template laid down by other writers before.

[Cold Warrior]

Russia does have problems, but this article, like many others, misses the point because it was written without knowledge, simply copying a template laid down by other writers before.

 

Depopulation may not be such a bad thing. With machinery, robots and computers replacing many 'human' tasks less workforce will be needed without sacrificing current living standards. Also the unemployment rate and strain on natural resources will be diminished.

[Turboguy]

The bad part is it probably would not even help if the bordered on Mexico.

[Elen]

Depopulation may not be such a bad thing. With machinery, robots and computers replacing many 'human' tasks less workforce will be needed without sacrificing current living standards. Also the unemployment rate and strain on natural resources will be diminished.

Tell that to China which we border with ?

[wendaaaal]

Well thought out, Andrew. Whole rural stretches of America are "drying up and blowing away", with the same lack of  medical access as Russia. Booming urban areas and increasing immigrant birthrates create regional strains here as well. It will be interesting to see how Russia's demographics change if their own immigrants from neighboring republics feel comfortable to "put down roots" and stay.

[Turboguy]

 Tell that to China which we border with ?

You do make a good point Elen.  A few months ago they did a poll among mexican people and 50% dream of coming to the USA.   My guess is a poll in china would not have the same results.   There are some good sides to the Mexicans coming to the USA but it does have a big effect on our demographics. 

[Cold Warrior]

The Chinese will have their own demographic problems soon with an aging population ( almost 125 million  are 60 y.o and over) and 200 million Chinese boys more than girls.

[andrewfi]

Once one moves away from the distorted thinking prevalent at the moment, then the biggest single demographic issue facing Russia is its territorial integrity. As it stands the Koreans and Chinese are already making inroads into Russia, albeit that this is largely with the agreement of the Russians and Chinese and Korean capital and workers are developing the oilfields. Along the Russian/Chinese border there is a huge amount of cross border agricultural and commercial activity.

If there are too few people and the Russian far east  becomes too depopulated and is seen as simply a repository of natural resources, then the temptation to simply walk in and take becomes strong. Right now, the Russian government is not in a position to mobilise effective miltary response in the region as was shown a couple of years ago when the governor of, IIRC, the Amurskaya Oblast (principal city Vladivostok) was able to thumb his nose at Moscow and Moscow was powerless to retaliate, they could not mobilise any kind of force to depose the governor and in the end had to settle for paying off an opponent to usurp his position. (I can not recall the details) Historically the region was Chinese anyway, only becoming 'Russian' in 1880. Sadly, no matter how many babies Oleg and Olga make, the Chinese will be outstripping them in terms of mobilisable armed forces eternally! Russia needs to ensure that, by means of a sound economy, the Chinese and Koreans can be persuaded that they are better off within their own borders than in seeking lebensraum in Russia. IMHO, the Kremlin has already gone a good way down the line in this regard.

Historically, it is a fact that incoming economic migrants enrich and enliven the economy and culture of the country to which they arrive. Russia is aware of this, but wants to have some idea of the volume and type of movements, hence their recent tightening of visa regulations. They are probably better aware of the reality of the issues than the US is right now in respect of its own northward migration.

 

[Bruce]

Andrew, could you clarify your last sentence:

"They are probably better aware of the reality of the issues than the US is right now in respect of its own northward migration." 

Excellent topic.  Thanks for bringing it up again Coldwarrior.  What is the best way for Russia to deal with its significant population problem?   That would be an excellent discussion.  I am sure Russia has alot of really smart people trying to figure out the answer to this question right now.  Can they see the forest from the trees and can they solve the problem in time? 

I have been saying for a long time that immigration is necessary for Russia.  However, to get the right mix of immigrants is extremely difficult.  Look at all the problems we are dealing with here in the USA right now. 

The Eastern border is a huge problem for Russia.  The Arab problem in the South potentially is greater.  Yes, population is the root of the problem, but how to solve it is much more difficult.  To start with, I believe Russia has to develop a more USSR / American inclusive view on minorities.  Until they believe they can absorb minorities and make them as Russian as real Russians they will not be able to properly integrate minorities.  They also have to make the deal attractive to get the quality immigrants they need.  I am sure Andrew has thoroughly thought about this issue and has realistic working theories.

[andrewfi]

As I see it, in the US, popular & government opinion is largely biassed toward the idea that immigration takes away from the idigenous population. In Russia, much popular opinion is the same, but the government is aware of the reality that immigration adds to, rather than takes away from, the wealth of the people, both economically and culturally. There is no shortage of bigots in Russia, even in government, but at a policy level, bigotry seems notably absent.

Bigotry is always a showy political gambit as the recent Moscow city elections showed, but the winners of the election were not the Nationalists (or the liberals!)

Russia is not like the USA. There is no melting pot in Russia, it is built up from a large number of distinct cultural and racial groups. The USA, once the natives had been largely eradicated formed a much more homogenous mix, albeit, segregated upon racial lines. By that, I mean there is no such thing as a homeland for Irish or Germans, apart from Ireland or Germany. In Russia you have relatively independent states that are also the ethnic homeland for many ethnic groups. The USA and Russia have little to share in this regard. Russia much more akin to the EU here, but with greater diversity in a smaller population.

Russia, per se, and Russians are but a small part of the ethnic groups living in the Russian Federation. Quite rightly, Russia has moved away from the Stalinist integration mode and toward recognition of the groups and nations within her borders. This creates tensions, but also opportunities.

As most migrants tend to be economic, as Russia's economy grows, it will offer better opportunities to its immigrants. The issue is not one of quality, but opportunity.

[Photo Guy]

Andrew(not)fin wrote:
Russia, per se, and Russians are but a small part of the ethnic groups living in the Russian Federation. Quite rightly, Russia has moved away from the Stalinist integration mode and toward recognition of the groups and nations within her borders. This creates tensions, but also opportunities.

[size="3"][color="darkred"]How does Russia's movement away from the Stalinist integration mode, and toward recognition of groups and nations within her borders, create opportunities?  Doug[/color][/size]

[andrewfi]

In general terms diversity creates opportunities, niches, within which economic and social development can take place. Under the Stalin era Soviet system, not only was individual nationhood/diversity suppressed, but the opportunity for economic diversity also. Almost all economic activity was subsumed within the state, state planning and state enterprise.

As the Russian Federation, in general, returns to its previous situation, people now have the opportunity to grow culturally and economically.

Whilst the Soviet Union often had leaders from the 'regions', much of the real administrative power was in the hands of European Russians, this is now changing and federated nations are now tending to have local leadership and administration.

[Photo Guy]

[size="3"][color="darkred"]Andrew,
What specific opportunities are created?  Here in the US, I do not see those kind of opportunites created by diversity. I see employers taking advantage of cheap labor and employees taking advantage of making higher wages than in their home environment (Mexico).
That has little to do with cultural diversity. So what do you mean, specifically?  -doug[/color][/size][/b]

[BC]

Photo,

Think of the US without TacoBell and Dominos.

[andrewfi]

To take your example, you gave the answer yourself! Do not make the mistake of thinking that the situation you describe is not good, or is generally unfair to anyone.

Immigrants tend to do jobs that other people do not want to do. Often the limiting factor in the ability of the immigrant to do more 'pleasant' work is language, as can be seen by US income figures for second and third generation immigrants. The immigrant may be doing work that is below his overall capability, but he is almost certainly better off than in his home country. This happens in Russia just as in the US. By freeing up 'natives' to do more valuable work, overall the economy is better off and all the individuals are better off.

Of course if the native workforce is badly trained and overpaid then the 'natives' may be displaced, but that is the fault of the natives for not ensuring they were working at their best. So, we have, in Finland, many bus drivers, who are Somali, they have a very good work ethic, they are good drivers and they will work happily for the wages available. The Finnish bus drivers feel displaced, but, if they wanted to they could move to other jobs, but usually they do not wish to invest in themselves and thus simply moan about immigrants and how they are taking over the bus services!

When a society has diverse cultural inputs, then there are diverse ways of approaching issues, different patterns of thought. These can be harnessed to the benefit of society as a whole and of course the insights and practices can be learned.

In the Russian Federation, immigration and internal migration provide labour for construction, farming and trading, as well as more 'intellectual' pursuits. The workers are able to remit money back to their homes and families, thus spreading the wealth of the country more evenly.

In its most basic form, if everyone in a group is similar to the others, then the outcomes generated by that group will tend to similarity. If the inputs are varied, then so are the outcomes.

Here is an interesting paper, published in 2001, it examines the federalistic nature of Russia and the ties that bind. Remember that during the early 1990's there was considerable speculation that Russia could not survive as a single national entity. It has and is voluntarily strengthening, even though the regions are more clearly defined than a couple of decades ago. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3996/is_200104/ai_n8943252/print

[Photo Guy]

[size="3"][color="darkred"]Andrew.
I think diversity, especially cultural diversity without assimilation or integration produces mostly negative results.[/color][/b]

[/size]You wrote: When a society has diverse cultural inputs, then there are diverse ways of approaching issues, different patterns of thought. These can be harnessed to the benefit of society as a whole and of course the insights and practices can be learned.

[size="3"][color="darkred"] That sounds positive, especially on a theoretical level, but in the real world in the U.S., I can think of very few examples of it happening in practice. When I think of specific benefits to society, I immediately think about technological breakthroughs that are the result of scientific research. Scientific research shares a worldwide common language - nothing to do with 'diversity'. Thinking in the direction of benefits derived from cultural diversity, off-hand, I can think of something like yoga. The beneficial practice of yoga, has not exactly occured as a result of Hindus from India landing in the US. It has more to do with global communication, rather than movement of peoples.

I do not know about Finland or the Russian Federation, but do you sincerely believe millions of Mexicans swarming into the US illegally, will provide the US with benefits associated with different ways of approaching issues. It just doesn't ring true for me. When will these fresh Mexican ideas be harnessed for the greater good of society in the US? It seems absurd, but maybe I'm wrong.

Is a Mexican's willingness to work for lower wages truly an example of 'diversity'? 'Diverse' standards of living?  -doug[/color][/size][/b]  

[Photo Guy]

Andrew wrote:
In its most basic form, if everyone in a group is similar to the others, then the outcomes generated by that group will tend to similarity. If the inputs are varied, then so are the outcomes.

[size="3"][color="darkred"]That seems to be logical, but I look at people differently. I don't see them as being similar. Here's what I mean- my brother and I share genes, a common background, same race, and grew up in a similar cultural environment.

His creative concept for 'The Perfect House' would be very different from my idea.

In the information age, we have a diversity of ideas and concepts and we lack focus. My brother's perspective differs from my own, probably to the degree that your average Fin differs. I'll grant you the exception and say that those individuals who are cut off from mainstream global communications, probably do have a perspective that is to a greater degree, different. Maybe an aborigine from Australia could have interesting architectural ideas. I just can't think of any of them right now. If you find an interesting URL on that subject, let me know.

Here's my point. When you say 'inputs', -I see inputs as people with creative practical ideas, rather than as groups who are labelled in terms of race or region or national origin, etc.
If an immigrant comes from, say, France, will he or she create a unique effect that will benefit society? Doesn't it depend on how the power structure reacts to the input? You can say that the group that allows the benefits to actually occur, filter through all of the 'bad' ideas and allow that one brilliant valuable cultural element (or idea) to flourish? I think that can and does happen, but I do not think it's has a significant effect on society in general. Years ago, we in the U.S. drank fine French wine and thought, 'Ummm. Yes! We must incorporate this French product into our daily lives!'

Yes, that happens, but the influx of diverse cultural elements can have severely damaging effects. For example, I can remember in the 70's' I would go into a convenience store and SPEAK with the cashier.(true story) I could actually socialize with the person who worked there in the store. Now, in Phoenix, this often cannot happen. Society is becoming fractured into speakers and non-speakers of English. I fear that this separation is a really bad thing -damaging to society.  -doug  [/color][/size][/b]

[Photo Guy]

Photo,

Think of the US without TacoBell and Dominos.

[size="3"][color="darkred"]Ah yes. BC, I'm enjoying the picture! Instead, I can picture deli's.
Delicatessens. On every corner, replacing the fast-food joints.
A little Mexican grocery store might be a good thing. 
Food chains suck!    -doug [/color][/size][/b]

[andrewfi]

Doug ~ As I wrote upthread, there are very significant differences between the US and Russia in respect of politics and race. This is not the forum for such discussions. If you want to understand the real situation vis a vis immigration then think of this: If immigration were diluting the economic value of the US, then the economy would likely not be expanding. If migrants were such a drain upon the economy, then unemployment would be higher than it is among the indigenous population.

Historically, there is a correlation, in the US, between immigration and economic growth. Times when immigration has been tightened have always been times of lesser economic growth. You Doug, seem to be an exemplar of those who seem to see immigration in a generaly negative light. I can not change that, it is your misfortune. You could increase your econoic and personal value and learn some Spanish, but you probably won't. The Mexican in the shop will and he or his kids will outstrip you both economically and socially, your choice and your loss.

Take a look at this site. you will learn a lot! http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2003/swe0306a.html This is interesting too: http://www.brookesnews.com/043008immigration.html

There is a fracturing of American society, but it is driven not by immigration, although for many it is an easy target, takes less thought and understanding. The bigger cause of schism in the US is the media, both broadcast and print. In an effort to appeal to their markets there ahs been a very significant trend to ghettoisation of the media in order that advertsisng can be distributed to ethnic groups that can be more easily aggregated and counted, but this, again is not relevant to a discussion about Russia.

Anyone who gave up drinking French wine because of some imagined slight against your country is guilty of foolishness in the extreme and of course, also guilty of ignorance. Your views are a tad parochial, but that itself demonstrates exactly the points I am trying to make about immigration and diversity. You can not imagine what I am saying could be true because you have no way in which to experience it! My guess would be that you do not have more than one close friend who was born in a non-anglo saxon country, that you speak English and perhaps a hello or goodbye in Spanish, but again this is hardly relevant to the topic upthread, or this board, except in as much as it does illustrate some of the issues that you will face when you get to know your inamorata! She probably comes from a background of knowing and meeting with more people of different cultural heritage than you do. If you do not think that others can have a difernt, or better way of approaching particular issues than a good ol' American boy then you have some things to learn. There are reasons why American universities seek out students from all over the world, including the FSU!

BTW, about 23% of ALL immigrants to the US have a Bachelor degree or better, almost the same as the general population. The myth of the undereducated wetback will probably continue for as long as there are uneducated whites to believe in it! The jobs that people do often bear little resemblance to the jobs for which they were trained, that is as true in Russia as it is in the US, or the UK.

[Photo Guy]

[size="3"][color="darkred"]AndrewTheEstonian,
I am asking you for SPECIFIC examples to support your idea that cultural diversity has a beneficial effect on a society.  Through MY example you have implied that cheap labor is a benefit. I think that's a weak argument. Surely you can give us a better specific example(s) than that.

I see people every day here in Phoenix who fit the description of uneducated 'wetback'. Hundreds of them can be found on certain street corners in the US, looking to do manual labor for cheap. Do you think the millions of illegal immigrants are well-educated?

It is obviously more efficient for a society to speak one language, rather than multiple languages. That's just common sense. It is for the good of the world to speak the international language of business- English.  (It must be a common language, even if that language was, say French.) A common form of communication facilitates  efficient communication. I'm sure you can see what I'm saying. Do you really disagree with that concept?  I think the idea of universalism is far superior to cultural diversity. We humans have a lot in common. The human condition. Those things we have in common allow us to empathize with each other. On the other hand, our differences set us apart and divide us, and give rise to nationalism, racism, etc. When groups cannot communicate through a common language, they remain separated. Again, sharing one common language is the logical choice, for doing business and interacting socially, politically.  Doug[/color][/size][/b]

[andrewfi]

1) I am not Estonian.

2) I considered writing in my post above that I had no intention of being very micro about this. If you want me to write that a Georgian guy introduced new methods of selling watermelons to his Russian counterparts, you will hear nothing from me...

3) If we start from the premise of Autres pays, autres mœurs (other countries, other ways) then we can know that different places do things differently. But a concrete example of different groups influencing others positively might be something like Australian wine growers taking their techniques to South Africa and improving their wines to the benefit of the world. Or, Flemish weavers moving to Britain and introducing new weaving techniques that became the basis of British trade hegemony.

4) If you enjoy the taste of foreign food,then you are benefitting from cultural diversity, even in its watered down fast food style with which you might be most familiar.

[align=left]5) Have a read of this paper. http://nber15.nber.org/papers/w10904.pdf As an emmigrant I feel like I have personal experience supporting my firm belief that the greatest benefits of immigration to a country are quite subtle but very pervasive and often difficult to measure, but people pay me for my differnces and insights, so I guess I am not alone! Most traditional studies try to add up the economic costs and benefits of immigration by focusing on the taxes paid by immigrants, the direct impact of immigration on labor markets, and the government services they receive. Typically, such studies show a rough balance, some show a slight gain to the native-born population, and some showing a slight loss. (All show gains for immigrants themsleves, of course!) This paper looks at productivity among indigenous populations inthe US when exposed to immigrant workers.[/align]
If you think that cheap labour from good workers is a weak benefit then there is little I can do to convince you of a strong one, because you would not recognise one if it bit you! If you think that increased efficiency resultant from low wages is not significant, you might want to have a chat with a guy who runs a business... Talk to the guy who is living a substantially better life and remitting to his family every month onthe basis of low wages. But as I noted, upthread, low wages are but a single facet of the benefits of immigration. I think that you might just want to read the links I gave you to aid your understanding, but really this is wandering so far off topic that it is simply not germane to this board. Diversity is really the thing. If you consider that one of everything is enough, that a single model of car, tv, clothes is the best way to get the best of everything then you need to be in Belarus, not the USA!

[Photo Guy]

[size="2"]Andrewfin wrote:
1) I am not Estonian.

[size="3"][color="darkred"]I apologize. There seems to be some confusion about what you are.[/color][/size][/b]

2) I considered writing in my post above that I had no intention of being very micro about this. If you want me to write that a Georgian guy introduced new methods of selling watermelons to his Russian counterparts, you will hear nothing from me...

[size="3"][color="darkred"]No, I don't expect you to be micro, but you can make a stronger argument if you give contemporary concrete examples. If you cannot, that says a lot.[/color][/size][/b]

3) If we start from the premise of Autres pays, autres mœurs (other countries, other ways) then we can know that different places do things differently. But a concrete example of different groups influencing others positively might be something like Australian wine growers taking their techniques to South Africa and improving their wines to the benefit of the world. Or, Flemish weavers moving to Britain and introducing new weaving techniques that became the basis of British trade hegemony.

[size="3"][color="darkred"]I'm discussing 'diversity' with you. I think you are saying that in Russia, benefits result from the relocation and interaction of peoples from different cultures, different regions. In contemporary US, I do not see that benefit. If you can give us a few concrete examples of these benefits occuring in Russia today, please do so.
[/color][/size][/b][/size]
[size="2"]4) If you enjoy the taste of foreign food,then you are benefitting from cultural diversity, even in its watered down fast food style with which you might be most familiar.

[size="3"][color="darkred"]What you are saying makes more sense for 100 or even 50 years ago. Today, I do not see a large demand for a variety of recipes. When I interact with an immigrant taxi driver from the Czech Republic, who cannot speak English, I do not think to myself, 'This guy does not understand a word I am saying, but those Czech recipes are delicious.' My point is, diversity is a good thing, but assimiliation is much more important.[/color][/size][/b]
[/size]
[align=left][size="2"]5) Have a read of this paper. http://nber15.nber.org/papers/w10904.pdf As an emmigrant I feel like I have personal experience supporting my firm belief that the greatest benefits of immigration to a country are quite subtle but very pervasive and often difficult to measure, but people pay me for my differnces and insights, so I guess I am not alone! [/size][size="2"]Most traditional studies try to add up the economic costs and benefits of immigration by focusing on the taxes paid by immigrants, the direct impact of immigration on labor markets, and the government services they receive. Typically, such studies show a rough balance, some show a slight gain to the native-born population, and some showing a slight loss. (All show gains for immigrants themsleves, of course!) This paper looks at productivity among indigenous populations inthe US when exposed to immigrant workers.[/size][/align]
[size="2"]If you think that cheap labour from good workers is a weak benefit then there is little I can do to convince you of a strong one, because you would not recognise one if it bit you!

[size="3"][color="darkred"]Thanks for the slam, oh superior one!
I do think cheap labor is NOT a weak benefit, but it IS a weak benefit of DIVERSITY. Focus Andrew. We're discussing diversity. In terms of diversity, it is your only example (and stolen from me). I'll grant you that cheap labor can have some benefits. No doubt about it. If you look at the many facets of the 'diversity' topic, I think most people will find aspects that damage society. Feel free to counter that with specific examples from your life, rather than  surveys and studies that are slanted in your direction. Don't you have any personal experiences? Or do you usually just stay behind your keyboard and rely on the experiences of others to form your opinions? (BTW, productivity is one way of looking at things, but quality of life is a better way.)[/color][/size][/b]



If you think that increased efficiency resultant from low wages is not significant, you might want to have a chat with a guy who runs a business... Talk to the guy who is living a substantially better life and remitting to his family every month onthe basis of low wages. But as I noted, upthread, low wages are but a single facet of the benefits of immigration. I think that you might just want to read the links I gave you to aid your understanding, but really this is wandering so far off topic that it is simply not germane to this board. Diversity is really the thing. If you consider that one of everything is enough, that a single model of car, tv, clothes is the best way to get the best of everything then you need to be in Belarus, not the USA!

[size="3"][color="darkred"]In the US, as you probably know or should know, there is MUCH diversity. However, when a group moves into a country like the US, France, or Russia, without assimilating, what happens? Are you blind to the negative effects? Is the world black and white for you? Look at the recent riots in France. Sure, you can say that  French cuisine is more diverse now, but that's a weak argument in the context of riots that result from a lack of assimiliation.  Doug[/color][/size][/b]
[/size]

[BC]

Doug,

The process of assimilation cannot be forced successfully.

I recently went to Washington DC, required frequent use of taxi's. Without exception 20 out of 20 taxi's we took were driven by guys from Etheopia.

DC obviously 'enjoys' the benefits of diversity with decently priced taxi service.  The restaraunts were run by Indians regardless of cusine served. We went to eat at an Italian place and guess what..

In RU I noticed that Korean's represented a good share of the processed vegetable stands and were quite popular.  Here in Italy we now have Chineese clothing stores!

Forget your ideas of 'Universalism' with a common language etc.. It just won't happen.  In fact life would be quite boring (and a good bit more expensive) that way..  'birds of a feather'.. don't expect penguins and seagulls to mix well but they both play an important part in the overall ecological picture.

[andrewfi]

BC ~ If we had but a single language, then we certainly would have lost a lot of diversity. Language is often seen as the programming for the mind. There are concepts in some languages that simply do not exist in others. But, increasingly, it is necessary to have a passing knowledge of more than one tongue. This is good as it exposes us to new thought patterns as well as the ability to communicate with huge numbers of people that we would otherwise have to ignore.

Doug ~ Sorry, this is not the place for me to run bonehead economics and culture classes. I have little interest in trying to go down this path with you, if I was so minded I would be writing on another board; what Ihave given you is in order to help you, not to get embroiled in a discussion of what exactly you want me to give you.

If you do not keep close enough attention to know that I am not Estonian, let alone notice where I actually come from, or if you can not note the references and examples I gave then, again, this is not the place for this discussion.

You have more than enough examples and references to go at. If you care to provide refutation then go ahead, but do it from the basis of fact and example. Diversity and its benefits are not location specific. The US has many ethnic groups within its borders and I chose American examples because they are easy to get, you can read them, they have some relevance to you - making comprehnsion easier. If you believe that there is a good reason why the USA is a bad example to choose, then please provide refutory evidence.

Actually, Doug, don't bother with further debate on the matter. Really this is not the place. You have plenty of reading to get on with. It is obvious that you have either not read, or possibly taken on board, the material I provided and so discussion would be moot until you did your homework! Actually there is material that makes the opposing argument, it tends to be less strong, overall and often opinion, rather than fact, based but there is plenty of it, you might want to consider both sides of the argument to help you to shape your opinions.