The Russian brain drain--very Blade Runner-ish
Friday, September 3, 2010 at 12:04AM 
Anybody still watching?
Newsweek blurb (Newsweek is just columns and blurbs now, and virtually no reporting) on how Russia's professional class is fleeing the country.
So who gets left behind? Not the get-up-and-go types, because--increasingly--they've gotten up and gone, boding very badly for Russia's business DNA pool.
Reminds me of the death-and-dying vibe of Earthicans (Futurama term) left behind in "Blade Runner." A very negative sign.
And once gone, Russian businessmen do not return out of fear of being jailed by policy, who are "colluding with organized criminals to seize control of legitimate businesses."
Putin started this whole trend; now Medvedev tries to reverse by decrying "legal nihilism."
Until the regime gets serious about this, Russia has only a present--no future.
Reader Comments (7)
Thank you. Perhaps my previous commentary on this topic wasn't as clear as this. It's not as if the Russian market can't be lucrative. It's that, when viewed through capitalist glasses, it's entirely too risky until the market conditions become fair enough that an entrepreneur can take the risk-reward plunge and let their own merits play themselves out.
Welcome back! Missed you.
"Until the regime gets serious about this, Russia has only a present--no future."
Given that the Russians are losing 1 million people a year net, and are likely to continue to do so until 2050 (per Murray Feshbach (late of the Census Bureau, now at the Wilson Center)), I'm not sure the Russians have ever had a future. Well, aside from the echo of the Black Death, where an increasing economic pie (due to oil revenues) gets carved by fewer and fewer people, leading to bigger slices.
The demographic implosion of Russia has been one of the driving factors of their policies for at least 30 years now. I remember the "bonuses" the USSR would give mothers for children, pretty much supporting them in full if they'd have 4+ (or on that order). This has consistently been underreported in the West, although The Atlantic took a stab at it in the 1970s, with an interview with Feshbach called, "Counting the Russians." Particularly revealing because apparently the Soviets kept their 1950s census data in a vault.
"iven that the Russians are losing 1 million people a year net"
That comment is so Yeltsin-era. Russia's population actually grew by about 20,000 in 2009, and 2010 is on track to be better, with births up significantly on the year, and deaths down slightly.
Deaths still exceed births, but immigration more than makes up for it.
Now, if you want to see a true dmographic disaster, check out Ukraine and Latvia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Latvia
Lithuania and Estonia ain't looking too hot either.
"That comment is so Yeltsin-era."
Yup. It's also Stalin-era, Khrushchev-era, Brezhnev-era, Chernenko-era, Andropov-era, Gorbachev-era, and Putin-era.
"Russia's population actually grew by about 20,000 in 2009"
That assumes one believes the ministry of health, who have shown... a certain flexibility with strict numeric adherence for the last 70 years on this topic.
But let's give them the benefit of the doubt, and say, "This time, for sure!" 20,000 on a claimed population of 142 million is .014 percent. If there's any evidence to show that's not well outside the Russians' margin of error, please show it. It's also, by their own acknowledgement, the first time the population in Russia has grown at all in 15 years.
Meanwhile, the top demographer of Russia from the US says, "By 2050, said Feshbach, Russia's current population of 144 million could fall to 101 million or as low as 77 million if factoring in the AIDS epidemic." That was in 2004, and well into the Putin era.
If you have actual data, please show it. If you have data that's not from a Russian ministry that been inflating their figures for generations, even better.
"(I)f you want to see a true dmographic disaster, check out Ukraine and Latvia."
Those may be additional disasters. However they have no bearing on whether Russia is a disaster or not. I'd also suggest googling the term, "deflection."
"Yup. It's also Stalin-era, Khrushchev-era, Brezhnev-era, Chernenko-era, Andropov-era, Gorbachev-era, and Putin-era."
In none of those years, apart from the war years, were deaths exceeding births by a million per year. of the RSFSR declining by a million per year.
"That assumes one believes the ministry of health, who have shown... a certain flexibility with strict numeric adherence for the last 70 years on this topic.
Please specify the errors the ministry of health are making, and whose on present birth/death rates are better?
And you know, Russia's population pyramid from every source I've seen indicates that there isn't much wrong with the overall birth/death stats for the past half century.
You need to update your meme here.
"It's also, by their own acknowledgement, the first time the population in Russia has grown at all in 15 years."
Indeed, breaking up the USSR was disasterous for pretty much everyone living there.
"Those may be additional disasters. However they have no bearing on whether Russia is a disaster or not."
They do show that a "Western" orientation does not necessarily solve the problems arising from breaking up the USSR.
We clearly have different levels of understanding of the manipulation of Russian/Soviet demographic figures since at least the Census of 1937, and I don't have the immediate time for the lengthy post that would take. (Let alone, I know Tom frowns on very lengthy comments).
Top-line, short question, though: Do you sincerely believe Moscow has a higher population density than Tokyo? Because according to official claims, it does today, and has since at least the late-1960s when I noticed the claim being made. That is, according to official figures, at no time in the last 40 years has Tokyo been more densely populated than Moscow. Do you believe that to be factually accurate? Or can you see that perhaps something might be wrong with the figures for such a claim to be made?
As I say, I'll get back to this later, assuming Tom is willing to allow a lengthy explanation.
"Top-line, short question, though: Do you sincerely believe Moscow has a higher population density than Tokyo?"
Um, even Warsaw has pretty close to Tokyo's population density. Heck, even Khartoum's and Barcelona's population density is higher than Tokyos. Baghdad's is almost twice that of Tokyo's, and how many high-rises are in Baghdad?
I note that Tokyo's land area is over 3 times Moscow's.
In other words, I do not claim precise knowledge of the topic, but it would come as no suprise at all to me that Moscow's population density is higher than Tokyo's.
Now, show me actual data and analysis that demonstrates your strongly implied but factually unsupported point that Tokyo's population density is higher than Moscow's.
And please support your claim that all, yes, all, of the Stalin, Krushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, and Gorbachev periods all had years in which deaths/emigration in the RSFSR exceeded births/immigration by a million per year.
To refresh your memory:
You:
Given that the Russians are losing 1 million people a year net,
Me:
That comment is so Yeltsin-era.
You:
"It's also Stalin-era, Khrushchev-era, Brezhnev-era, Chernenko-era, Andropov-era, Gorbachev-era, and Putin-era.
It is quite an extraordinary claim, that all, yes, all, yes, every single one, of the Stalin, Krushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, and Gorbachev periods all had years in which deaths/emigration in the RSFSR exceeded births/immigration by a million per year. And yet, you do not support it, at all.
Are you commonly given to extraordinary claims backed by nothing?