Korelsky, V. F. Fish, fishermen and fish industry in Russia / V. F. Korelsky. - Bremen : Krebs, [1993?]-.

The belief in saving “dash” was shared by more than one generation of planners. It permeates all the long-term forecasts of the development of the national economy. It was planned to increase the norm of accumulation (the share of the national income used for accumulation) or to keep it at a high level at the beginning of every period for which a forecast was prepared and get a high return in consumption at the end of the period. It seems to me that it is time to overturn the pyramid of priorities in the economic policy and practice. For decades the needs of defence and the demands of heavy industry were at its top and the branches servicing the immediate needs of consumers were at its bottom. I make the following inference: Russia is in an acute need of development of group “B” industries and the branches of subdivision II of the public production and the fish industrial complex. Without support of the state the fish industry will have great difficulties in entering into the market and the population of Russia will feel the deficit of fishstuffs for a long time. 6. Today the wages in the fish industrial complex of Russia are fair from the point of view of the cost accounting activity but insufficiently covered by goods from the viewpoint of the results of labor. A huge amount of money is paid in the country for the output of goods which, because of their very nature, cannot become consumer goods. The deficit of consumer goods and the inflation processes (the competition of incomes and prices) appeared not because too much money is paid but because insufficient quantity of goods are produced th at can be bought with this money. There is no correct correspondence in the country between the demand for money and its covering by goods. The real situation is that a considerable part of incomes for the current (and former) work is depreciated. In spite of the repeated rises of “free” prices, milliards of roubles are accumulated by the people who cannot spend them with some benefit. This disparity constandy increases, mainly due to payments for labor producing only a few quantity of things that can be bought for use. From the point of view of a correct regulation of the wages fund, we considered the following principal problem: What is the upper bound of payment for labor? In the general form this problem can be formulated as follows: What is the natural limit of all current incomes of the population (wages, bonuses, additional payments, pensions, stipends, etc.) at every given moment? The traditional answer comes from the relationship between wages and labor productivity, specifically for the fish industry, from the cost of the output of gross, commercial or actual production per worker of the industrial complex. The general answer is that the labor productivity must increase faster than the payments made for it. It is correct, but for the present situation in our economy the limit of the rise of wages is not the rate of increase of labor productivity but the increment of goods for which the wages can be spent. But the major part of the increment of wages falls on the payments to workers who produce intermediate- purpose goods. These branches have multimilliard funds, the labor in them is hard, hazardous and complicated, whereas the wages are lower than those in branches of group “B”. All attempts to limit 1 5 3