mk.ru
Russia's Informal Workforce Reaches 14.2 Million in Q3 2023
In Q3 2023, 14.2 million Russians (19.1% of the workforce) were informally employed, driven by seasonal work, government policies, and employer cost-cutting, resulting in a growing social welfare burden.
- How does the current system incentivize informal employment, and what are the consequences for both employers and employees?
- The growth of informal employment reflects employers seeking to reduce labor costs by avoiding social security contributions and severance payments. This trend, while beneficial for employers, creates a significant problem for the country.
- What is the immediate impact of the rising number of informally employed Russians on the national economy and social welfare?
- In Q3 2023, 14.2 million Russians were informally employed, representing 19.1% of the workforce, a rise from 2022. This increase is partly due to seasonal work and government initiatives encouraging self-employment, which removes individuals from unemployment statistics but not necessarily poverty.
- What systemic changes are needed to reduce informal employment in Russia, drawing on international best practices, and what are the potential long-term effects of these changes?
- The high number of informally employed individuals (14.2 million in Q3 2023) represents a substantial pool of workers lacking social security benefits and at risk of poverty in old age, increasing the future burden on the state budget. Addressing this requires clearer legal definitions of employment, equalizing conditions for employed and self-employed individuals, and stricter controls on personal income and expenses.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames informal employment primarily as a problem for the economy and a path to poverty, neglecting any potential positive aspects. The headline and introduction set a negative tone, influencing the reader's perception of the issue.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language such as "tеневая занятость" (shadow employment), "белые дороги" ("white roads"), and "прямые претенденты на получение социальной пенсии" (direct applicants for social pensions), which carries negative connotations. More neutral terms could be used to describe informal employment and its consequences.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the negative impacts of informal employment but omits discussion of potential benefits or reasons why individuals might prefer informal work, such as flexibility or autonomy. It also doesn't explore potential solutions from the perspective of the informal workers themselves.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy between "white" formal employment and informal employment, ignoring the complexities and nuances of the labor market. It oversimplifies the choice, neglecting the various reasons why individuals might choose informal work.