womensecr.com
  • Income and expenses in the family

    "The economy should be economical".We hear these words daily on the radio, on television, in the newspapers, about which we are talking at home, at the dinner table. Probably, at first such a judgment seemed strange to you: they would say that the oil should be oily. But the above "set" of options for doing household chores convinces that management can be both wasteful and miserly. Both are uneconomical.

    How is it better to lead a family business? Here we can not do without tsifiri. Naturally, it will be necessary to operate with statistically averaged data. Let us turn to this information for a specialist, Doctor of Economics BV Rakitsky, who published a very interesting and instructive book, which is called: "The welfare strategy."

    We are interested in: what are the features of the average Soviet family? The economist says that the most important factors in the formation of the material living conditions of the family are two factors: the level of income and the composition of the family. The different ratio of working and dependents in the family( children, disabled people, pensioners with a small pension) has a decisive effect on "per capita" income. Here's how it looks at the example: in one family, adults get a pretty solid salary, dad and mom. But the family has five children and a grandmother who receives a small pension benefit. And in another family, parents receive less per month, but they have a dependent child. Thus, lower-paid workers can be better off than the above-paid.

    "In any society there is a concept of high, medium and small families, and accordingly - high, medium and low income per person. It is clear that over time, as the standard of living improves, there is an increase in the criteria for each of these groups, so that today's average level of security is yesterday's high and tomorrow's low. This means that the same salary at different times gives us the opportunity to conduct our own economy in different ways, "writes B. V. Rakitsky and cites the dynamics of the growth of the well-being of the Soviet family over the past two decades.

    Over the period from 1966 to the 1980s, the monetary incomes of the population doubled.

    Our expenses are also significantly changing. We now spend more on food than before, but in percentage terms less than several years ago. It is clear, why? Wages are steadily growing, and government prices for most products do not change. The total increase in food costs is also due to the fact that their composition is changing: the consumption of cheap and less-calorie foods, like bread and potatoes, which were consumed in large quantities before in Russia, is declining. The share of more expensive and more high-calorie products grows in our ration: meat, fish, butter, eggs, sausages, milk, as well as vegetables and fruits.

    On average, our family spends on food from 1/3 to half of all income. Approximately the same proportion falls on industrial goods. And in their quantity and quality there are noticeable shifts. Expenditures on long-term items( and, therefore, more expensive) are increasing: refrigerators, televisions, motorcycles and cars, furniture sets, carpets, furs, etc. More often there is a change of clothes, shoes, more attention is paid to modern models, and not onlyThe legs were shod and the body was covered, as it was just recently.

    Today, rural residents have become as active consumers of industrial, and many food products as townspeople. The economy of the villagers has undergone the most drastic changes. Therefore, different products are now required many times more than three decades ago. This shows the law of a just leveling of the standard of living of Soviet people, wherever they live, whether in the city or in the countryside. But in this process, as in any other, there are also their negative sides. From the "ship of modernity" foundations, habits, worked out by the centuries-old experience of the people, adapted to certain living conditions, are dumped. In the peasant environment there was a custom: nothing to buy, what you can do and get yourself, do not throw anything away, which else can fit in the farm.

    Peasant frugality and turnover in the face of energy shortages, declining mineral resources, the ability of the earth to feed and clothe the growing population of the planet is the worst habit. But, unfortunately, the peasants themselves have gradually changed these customs, having an example of an urban family and an increasing number and improving quality of consumer goods, which, of course, can not compete with a single-handed craftsman, a self-made master.

    Today in our common economy - in the state economy - the tendency is asserted: industrial production should become waste-free, such that the wastes of one enterprise and the economy would become raw materials for another. But this situation can not become universal, if in our own house and economy we do not acquire the skills of thrift and utilitarianization of everything that becomes obsolete, out of fashion. And in the character of modern young( and not so young) people, the wasteful and careless manner of dealing with things has already become established, it will be difficult to change it.

    With the growth of opportunities, such principles of prudent management as "stretching out the legs" are forgotten. Present young spouses quite often, beginning a joint life, have no idea how to distribute their own income, so as not to run around relatives and friends before the salary, intercepting the ten.

    Here, the main figures of expenditures for food and clothing were already mentioned: no more than 80% of total income. It is also necessary to take into account the monthly fee for the apartment, electricity, gas, transport costs, cultural activities and entertainment, sports, travel, holidays and gifts.

    The advice given to women by NV Gogol is curious in this respect. Here are some excerpts from his economic recommendations: "Do not keep a common account book, but from the very beginning of the year make an estimate of everything ahead, embrace all your needs, figure out how much you have to pay in a year according to your income, and bring all of the round sums. Divide your money into seven. .. heaps. In the first heap there will be money for an apartment, with an otkopkoi, wood and everything that does not apply to the walls of the house and the cleanliness of the yard, in the second heap - money on the table and on a chef cooked with salaries and food of everything that lives in your house;in the third heap - the carriage: coach, coachman, horses, hay, oats. ..;in the fourth heap - money for the wardrobe, that is all you need for both of you then to appear in the light or sit at home;in the fifth heap there will be your pocket money;in the sixth - money for extraordinary expenses, which may meet. .. Make these seven heaps stay unmixed, like seven separate ministries. Everyone should take charge, and do not use any pretext from one heap to another. Whatever kind of bargains you might see at this time, and no matter how tempting they may make you cheap - do not buy. .. Strengthening yourself in the matter of material order, you will become insensitive in the matter of mental order. "

    Quite up-to-date are the items of expenditure. Only objects of everyday life have changed, but not the nature of the distribution of means. Instead of a chef's payment - the cost of meals in the dining room, instead of a coach with a coachman and eternally expensive oats, one can bear in mind a motorcycle with a garage and fuel for it, also inevitably expensive, with a repairman, etc. And so a very convenient system of accountingaccounting. You can store money in special envelopes designed to meet everyday needs. And really, do not succumb to temptations to re-enter from ourselves. This is an excellent training of willpower and reasonable regulation of one's own desires and impulses.

    - And what if you want to buy an expensive thing, but in one month you can not collect money for it, in another you can not meet it?

    I'm not going to give advice on my own behalf, I'll turn again to Gogol: "Everything has now blurred and unbound us. Every man was a scoundrel and a rag;turned himself into a mean base of everything and into a slave of the most vain and smallest circumstances, and now there is nowhere freedom in the true sense. This freedom is one friend of mine. .. defines this: "Freedom is not to say the will of your desires:" yes, "but to be able to tell them" no. "He's right, like the truth itself. "

    We will listen to this not very pleasant truth from the great man, because she has a relationship to some of us.

    With few exceptions( building a house or a cooperative apartment), there are no such things that are expensive, so that they are vital. As people say: "Everything that is necessary is cheap, everything that is unnecessary is expensive."

    If the purchase or expense requires a months-long accumulation, well, we will postpone and save, but so that not to the detriment of other items of expenditure. How? We will replace some needs and spending more modest. For example, we want to go on a trip to the summer, which requires considerable expenses: money for the road, for permits, for sports and "representative" equipment. We are launching special articles in the previously mentioned budget sections( "heaps") with a focus on leave. In the section of clothing, cultural interests and entertainment, in the diet even - their deductions to the cashier of the future trip.

    You can cut expenses on non-mandatory products, for example, on overseas fruits, and do not suffer damage in necessary vitamins, as it is known: oranges have less vitamins than in our northern cabbage, especially sauerkraut. You can reduce the consumption of fats, if you do not fry products. Fried food is more harmful than cooked. And in general, natural products, the less they are subject to processing, the more they conserve nutrients. Hence, in houses where heating is paid in accordance with the consumption of firewood, electricity, gas, saving money on fuel can also be redirected to the graph of the most-the most desired expense. But only saving money, not the necessary calories.

    It's reasonable to refrain Gogol from unnecessary purchases, even if they are cheap, especially if they are expensive: Things, like their creators, are people who do not tolerate loneliness, they need a "worthy society".For example, we bought an unexpectedly greeted. .. well, say, a trendy cloak. And to that the cloak there are no shoes, which would be in color and style approached the new thing. So buy your shoes. But they can not "dock" with any dress or suit that is already in your wardrobe. It turns out, there are new costs or shoes will be dressed only on the street, in the same room they will have to be changed. And you also need a handbag to become a cloak and shoes. There, you see, and the umbrella will be in flashy discord with new things. And the toilet will require a change in the color of lipstick. ..

    The same story can happen with the acquisition of a new chandelier, a new sofa, a carpet, even with pasting walls with some special wallpaper. And we have to admit: the more original and more effective the thing, the more capricious it is of burrows, the more destructive consequences of its appearance in the house are.

    Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, LG Borisova, as a person of this rank, tried to approach the ladies' wardrobe scientifically and create a scheme that would help us avoid such missteps and not fall for the bait of unnecessary but seductive things. The main principle of her methods is not to buy things-singles that do not have an affinity with what is in the house. Each acquisition must be connected to the maximum number of other components: by color, style, location and purpose. There are no sports things in the wardrobe, you know: the acquisition of one desired jacket will be a true disgrace. There is no use in everyday life of things that are consonant with, say, pink, do not buy a pink blouse, no matter how you like it. Inseparable colorful dresses with a lace collar, and strict you have not yet happened, - stay away from buying even an inexpensive collar. And put yourself fives every time you managed to overcome the temptation. Moreover, sumeite rejoice in overcoming your weakness, as the triumph of Beauty and Reasonableness.

    Saving also helps the custom to put waste into the business. How much money we spend on the purchase of newfangled means to care for your appearance: expensive soaps and shampoos, creams and lotions. But cosmetologists dissuade us from chasing after novelties. The mass of people earned on this disease of hair, skin, allergies. .. Where it is more useful to use dry bread for washing your head, the remnants of sour milk, sour cream, mayonnaise for rubbing into the skin of your hands. Use fruit and vegetable rind for nutritious masks. We often throw all this into the garbage can, throwing away our health with it( because the skin also receives nutrients through the skin), and its money and other people's labor to extract these products.

    It seems that you can always cut mandatory expenses, as always you can compensate for the disappointment of the failed purchase. I remember how my friend reacted to a sudden rush around the carpets. She had no money for such a renovation, and it was not foreseen. And I also wanted to decorate the walls of the house. She undertook to "cook" her own, hand-made carpet of old woolen blankets, dresses, bought only the finishing materials. And built a panel that all the owners of standard handsome palace-palaces only took envy.

    Recently, there has been a worldwide shift towards handicrafts. They are much more expensive in the market than industrial products. And this is understandable: when everyone can have the same thing as mine( and with millions of copies of all sorts of goods there invariably appears a stuffy standard), then certainly there is a desire to have something unique. This can only be a hand-crafted master. Here's to you a return to craftsmanship, to an amateur craft that our village grandmothers and grandfathers recently owned and who did not hurry to adopt their ability to hunt up new fashionable children and grandchildren.

    The fact that homemade things and services - a source of very significant savings on things and services paid, we have said before. Unfortunately, amateur labor still occupies a very small part of our leisure. If men and women spend about 28% of their free time watching TV programs and listening to radio programs, only about 1.5% spend on amateur work.

    . .. Economics is a moral concept. This is becoming more and more acute when we come to the category of the poor from the category of low-income ones. Here we reflected on how to deal with limited opportunities. Usually it was believed that the absence of material difficulties removes from the soul all the worries and problems. Buy what you want, enjoy the benefits of life for your own pleasure. All this is so. Only for people who do not think about what they will be, and especially their children in an environment of accessibility. After all, if this money is honestly earned, then they get high-class specialists. Such people usually become above average level of knowledge and skills. They are in sight, they are looked at, imitated by those who follow them. Hence, they should set an example of reasonable needs and their moral satisfaction.

    It is safe to say that many professionals who have a high salary, lead a reasonable lifestyle and their households are taught to restrain in consumer desires. Repeatedly visited in the homes of prominent figures of science and culture, famous workers and see how unpretentious they are in clothes, food, in furnishing their rooms. The most important values ​​for them are communication with interesting people, books, various works of art. Some, however, are fond of collecting collections that require huge expenses. But increasingly we learn that such gatherings are given to the native city or village, where this figure comes from.

    You probably heard from newspapers like the famous poet Rasul Gamzatov donated large sums of money to the Peace Foundation, and pop singer Alla Pugacheva refused from the awards of international festivals in favor of children and organizations fighting for peace.

    These kinds of contributions deserve all the approval. They can not be called donations, because there are no victims in the deep sense of the word: people refused not from the necessary, but from excess. Often a good example is given by having a well-off well above average, when they are in a hurry to share with those who need help: with low-income relatives and friends in distress, they give modest savings to help inmates of orphanages, improve streets, preserve nature, monumentsantiquity, etc.

    The ability to extract true joy from renouncing one's pleasures in favor of the benefit of another person is a moral economy with increasing opportunities.

    Let's not go on the soul: not all of the highly-advantaged people are inclined to self-restraint. Many, on the contrary, find in their material advantage the meaning and purpose of all professional efforts and achievements. It happens that not only help the distant, they try to snatch something from their neighbor.

    The passion of accumulation is one of the strongest human passions. To fight against it in conditions when such a choice of goods, services and benefits as now that can be purchased for money is much more difficult than at the time of the "great combinator" Ostap Bender. He, having found a million - the "blue dream of an idiot", could not use it in the conditions of the time when the distribution of all benefits was built not so much on money as on a corporate-professional basis.

    But, tell us, what substantiated claims we can make to people whose well-being is earned by honest labor. We are all different in their needs, preferences, habits and eccentricities. It turns out that this unconscious desire for equalizing domestic life lies in the nature of social relations.

    "Every private property as such feels - at least in relation to richer private property - envy and a thirst for leveling. .. Rough communism is only the completion of this envy and this leveling, starting from the notion of a certain minimum. He has a certain limited measure, "Marx wrote( Marx K., Engels F. Soch., Vol. 42, pp. 114-115).

    "Rough Communism", a distorted notion of equality, about proper and decent, not only in private, but also in personal property, has not yet been eliminated in our everyday life. Hurriedly sentences are imposed by uninvited judges on purely external signs of well-being: the neighbor has got a car, here he bought a carpet, and I have neither one nor the other. Hence, he is a bad person, a philistine, a collector. And at the same time, few people realize: by his "court" he violates one of the guaranteed freedoms - the inviolability of the individual and her private life, which is protected by the state, the Constitution of the USSR.Only if known and proven unfair sources of acquiring valuable things, a person can be subject to official conviction and public censure. In all other cases, the offended honest worker has the right to bring his detractors to account.

    Scientists warn those who advocate a leveling policy of distribution of benefits. This would be a violation of the fundamental principle of socialism: "to each according to his work".

    The experience that our society has learned from the period of War Communism rejects this approach. In principle, our state strives to bring together the size of the earnings of different categories of workers. Towards rapprochement, but not equalization.

    "The state strives to avoid equalization, in which real differences in qualifications, in the severity of work, its prestige, and the conditions of activity are ignored. All these moments, representing. .. vital interest, should be taken into account in the distribution of benefits. .. Communists always attached and attached considerable importance to moral incentives, enthusiasm, creative burning. But, being materialists, they, after Lenin, consider material interest as the basis for attracting people to work, the backbone of communist construction. Any theories and ideas that call for ignoring the material interests of people belong not to the Marxist-Leninists, but to the Left-wing revisionists, above all Trotskyites. "So writes B. V. Rakitsky, explaining the obvious difference in the material possibilities and needs of politically equal citizens of our country.

    - What does this mean? Needs by nature have no end and no end. Production is kind of indulging them and even exciting them. Is not this the reason for the newfangled phenomenon called "stuff", when young people, and quite mature people too, seem to have completely lost their heads: because of the junk they are ready to lay down the soul for Mephistopheles!

    These fears deserve serious attention, especially since everyone is worried about anxiety: those who are partial to things that are especially rare, scarce, and those whose pursuit of fashion causes only ironic sneers.