The dynamics of differentiation of wages among the employees of oil and gas industry during the1950s – 1980s (on the example of the “Tatneft”)

Aletkina Ekaterina Yur'evna Postgraduate student, Department of Historical Information Science, M. V. Lomonosov Moscow State University 119192, Russia, g. Moscow, Lomonosovskii pr-t, 27 k 4 sun_shine1996@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

After the end of the Great Patriotic War, the USSR faced the difficult task of restoring the most affected — economic and social — spheres of the country's life, in connection with which the definition of the main vectors of development was continued through the use of the experience of the pre-war five-year plans. So, in 1946, the Fourth Five-year Plan for the development and restoration of the national economy was approved, the main task of which was the priority restoration and development of heavy industry. ^{[1, p. 8]} In particular, this plan also determined the further development of the oil industry — an increase in oil production to 35.4 million tons ^{[1, p. 11]} It is noteworthy that compared with the production level of 1940 (31 million tons), the growth was only 14%, but in fact it was necessary to achieve an increase of 82.5% from the level of 1945 ^{[2, p. 293]}

It was at this time, thanks to the discovery of the Romashkinsky oil field on the territory of the Tatar ASSR, the Volga-Ural oil and gas region, or "Second Baku", acquired all-Union significance. The high level of oil reserves and their development has made Tatarstan one of the key oil regions of the country. In a short time after the discovery of a large field, production infrastructure began to be created here: already in 1950, the creation of Tatneft was announced ^{[3, l. 2-10.]} In 1956, Tataria came out on top in the USSR in oil production and maintained leadership until the second half of the 1960s – early 1970s. when the oil fields of Western Siberia reached a high level of development and the decline in oil production in the Tatar ASSR began, which was associated with the entry of fields into the late stage of development.

The creation of an oil base in the Tatar ASSR and the maintenance of its effective functioning was accompanied by a number of difficulties: initially there was no necessary production infrastructure, there was not enough equipment, nor qualified personnel and workers, nor social conditions for them. Based on the above, a natural question arises about the functioning of the system of motivation and stimulation of labor.

One of the main components of an effective system of material incentives for labor is wages ^{[4, p. 201]}. This article studies the dynamics of wages at various-scale objects of Soviet industry in the 1950s-1980s. The objects of macroanalysis are the industry of the USSR as a whole and the oil industry of the USSR in particular - to obtain more comparable data. The object of mesoanalysis is the Tatneft production association. The overall dynamics shows a certain trend in the payment of industrial labor in the period under study, which is further confirmed and detailed at the level of Tatneft.

The purpose of this article is to study the dynamics of wage differentiation of oil industry workers based on the materials of the Tatneft production association in the 1950s - 1980s with the identification of its main factors. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to consider issues related to the party-government policy in the field of labor incentives at industrial enterprises; to identify sources in which the remuneration systems of the Tatneft production association are characterized; to investigate the dynamics of the main production indicators of the Tatneft production association; to build and analyze the dynamic series of wages and payments from the material incentives (hereinafter referred to as FMP) for different categories of Tatneft employees; verify the hypothesis of equalization of salaries of workers and engineering and technical workers (hereinafter referred to as IT); interpret the results obtained, formulate conclusions about the development of material motivation of the Tatneft association, problems and achievements in the course of the studied processes.

***

The problem of industrial labor motivation is a relatively new topic for historians. In many ways, its development is connected with the Russian-Dutch research project "Labor Motivation in Russia, 1861-2000: remuneration, motivation, coercion", in which researchers from the International Institute of Social History (Amsterdam), MSU, TSU (Tver), YarSU (Yaroslavl) and IRI RAS participated. Studies conducted over the past 20-30 years show that wages were an important element of stimulating labor in Soviet times. Thus, in the works of A.K. Sokolov and A.M. Markevich, it is said about the fact of the weakening of the labor incentive system in the USSR, especially during the Brezhnev period: wages lost their stimulating value, as they were less and less associated with labor productivity. ^{[5, p. 334]}

A little later, this topic is considered in the monograph by I.G. Sagatelyan. The author notes that the management did not consider salary to be the main stimulating factor, unlike employees of enterprises who gravitated towards receiving material remuneration, i.e. who wanted to increase wages for higher qualifications and increased labor productivity in the 1960s-1970s ^{[6, p. 91]}.  A different position is contained in the article by G.S. Saghatelyan and S.A. Uncle. The authors claim that the management linked labor incentives with higher wages, but did not care enough about the social sphere for workers. At the same time, the authors have formulated a conclusion about the crisis of the Soviet system of labor motivation in the 1930s - 1980s due to the proliferation of the shadow sector in various spheres of Soviet life. To prove this thesis, calculations were made, according to which by 1985 only 1/3 of the average monthly salary of workers and employees was directly related to the productivity of their labor ^[7].

Thus, for employees, salary continued to be an important factor of labor motivation. however, the management of enterprises lost the connection between this element of labor stimulation and such an indicator as "productivity". 

Characteristics of sources

The source base of the study was formed in accordance with the set goal and is represented by office documentation stored both in federal archives (in the Russian State Archive of Economics (RGAE)) and in regional information storage centers (in the National Archive of the Republic of Tatarstan (ON RT) in the Document Storage Center after 1917). Our archival materials from the RGAE include consolidated annual reports and explanatory notes to them.

The funds of the Ministry of Oil and Gas Industry of the USSR (Fund No. 70) are located in the Russian State Archive of Economics. Within the framework of the study, attention was focused on the cases included in the Inventory No. 1 of the Fund No. 70 — Permanent storage cases of the central office and the main directorate of 1965-1980 ^[8] and Inventory No. 2 — Permanent storage cases of the central office and the main directorate of 1981-1991. ^[9] The materials of the fund's cases contain information on the number of employees of Tatneft", the average salary of employees of industrial and non-industrial personnel, the use of the material incentive fund, as well as the forms of remuneration of employees. The source shows that the labor of workers in oil production was paid according to piecework and time-based forms, and it should be noted that from 1967 to 1985, the share of piecework forms of remuneration expanded from 9% to 32%.

A more detailed picture of the functioning of the Tatneft Association is presented by materials from the National Archive of the Republic of Tatarstan, where there is a fund of the Open Joint Stock Company Tatneft (No. R-7246). It contains 8390 storage units covering the period from 1950 to 1996, and all the files of this fund are quite large in volume (each has at least 200 pages). The documents of the Planning Department and the Department of Labor Organization, Technology Regulation and Wages are of the greatest interest for the study.

From the materials of the Planning Department, the "Annual control figures of the Association" ^[10] for 1950-1957, "Annual reports on the Association and explanatory notes to them" ^[11] for 1950-1960 were used. From the materials of the Department of Labor, Technology and Wages, "Annual reports on the verification of collective agreements" ^[12], "Annual reports on the form H-15 on the implementation of production standards and salaries of the main professions", "Annual reports of enterprises on labor and wages" ^[13] were selected.

The materials of the reports help to reveal the features of the system of material motivation of labor, including incentive measures. They provide information about the level of salaries and methods of stimulating labor.

The most important of the published sources were statistical and reference materials containing information on the dynamics of wages at the enterprises of the Tatneft association. These data are presented in the collection "Development of Tatneft": statistics and comments" ^[14] former Deputy General Director of OAO Tatneft for Economic Affairs in 1988-1992 — M.K. Giniatullin. This statistical collection contains data on the salaries of workers and ITR for the Tatneft association in 1950-1998, however, they do not always coincide with archival data – the principle of data selection for statistics was not completely clear to us (sometimes data from the current year were used, in other cases – for the previous year).

Statistical data on the dynamics of average wages in the USSR industry are taken from the issues of the statistical yearbook "National Economy of the USSR" for 1950 – 1985.  and from the statistical collection "Labor in the USSR" In the future, they were combined into dynamic series characterizing the level of wages in the USSR industry, broken down by categories: industrial and production personnel, workers, engineering and technical workers (IT), employees. For comparability of data, some categories were recalculated by us (for example, data on IT and employees).

It should be noted that the policy of accounting for wage data has been constantly changing: in the annual reports of the production association, data on average wages have been appearing since 1968. It is clearly possible to trace changes in the category of "workers", since it was least subject to changes in the accounting documentation. There are some difficulties with the data on the "ITR" category: in the bonus reports, this category is combined with the "other" category, which includes "employees", "junior service personnel", etc.

Analysis of labor differentiation at the enterprises of the Tatneft Association

To begin with, let's consider what was the salary level in Tatneft in comparison with the all-Union indicators. Data on salaries of industrial and production personnel (PPP) in comparison with the all-Union indicators are as follows:

Fig. 1. The average monthly salary of the PPP with interpolation (taking into account payments from the FMP) Sources: Giniatullin M. K. Development of Tatneft / Statistics and comments. M., 2000. pp. 144-145; collection "Labor in the USSR" ^{[15, p. 190]}; collections "National Economy of the USSR" (detailed reference is given in the appendix to this article).

It should be noted that the data up to 1965 were checked against the collection "Labor in the USSR", published in 1988 and the jubilee yearbook "National Economy of the USSR 1922-1982", which took into account the denomination of the ruble 1961. We also emphasize that the source "Labor in the USSR"  it contains irregular data on the salary of industrial and production personnel: until 1970, one indicator is given in 10 years, later 1 indicator in five years, therefore, the data in Figure 1 was filled in using interpolation.

In Fig. 1, a characteristic feature can be noted: the wages of the PPP for the USSR industry as a whole and for the Tatneft production association have almost identical schedules, while the salaries for the USSR oil industry have higher indicators.

The ratio of salaries of the categories of employees of interest to us (workers and ITR) of the Tatneft production association with indicators of the same categories for the industry and industry as a whole are shown in Figures 2-4.

Fig. 2. Comparison of average monthly salaries of workers in the Tatneft production association and in the USSR (industrial group). Sources: Giniatullin M. K. Development of Tatneft / Statistics and comments. M., 2000. pp. 144-145; Collections "National Economy of the USSR" (detailed reference is given in the appendix to this article).

Fig. 3. Comparison of the average monthly salaries of the categories "IT and employees" for the production association "Tatneft" and in the USSR (industrial group). Sources: Giniatullin M. K. Development of Tatneft / Statistics and comments. M., 2000. pp. 144-145; Collections "National Economy of the USSR" (detailed reference is given in the appendix to this article).

As can be seen from the graphs above, there is practically no difference between the wages of industrial workers of the USSR as a whole and workers of Tatneft. At the same time, the salary of engineering and technical workers of the Tatneft Association significantly exceeded the average union figures for industry, which can be explained by the special importance of the oil sector for the USSR. In order to more specifically determine how the indicators of the average monthly salary of the production association in question correlated with the oil industry of the USSR as a whole, it is necessary to conduct an analysis with similar categories of workers.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to make a similar comparison with respect to the IT category, since the collection "Oil in the USSR in 1917-1987" provides data only on workers and employees, while in the statistical collection on Tatneft, the IT category is combined with the category "employees". However, it is possible to consider the ratio of salaries of workers of the USSR oil industry and the Tatneft production association (see Fig. 4)

Fig. 4. Comparison of average monthly salaries of workers in the oil industry of the USSR as a whole and for the Tatneft production association with interpolation. Sources: Giniatullin M. K. Development of Tatneft / Statistics and comments. M., 2000. pp. 144-145; collection "Labor in the USSR" ^{[15, p. 190]}.

As can be seen in Fig. 4, the dynamics of workers' salaries in the oil industry as a whole is higher than in Tatneft, and higher than the union-wide indicators for the industrial group.  To explain this phenomenon, let's try to consider the role of the regional coefficient, which depends on the territorial location of the production association in question. A coefficient equal to 15% was added to the wages of industrial workers in Tatarstan (i.e., the regional coefficient was equal to 1.15, and it was one of the lowest in the USSR) ^[16]. The regional coefficient makes it possible to explain such a discrepancy since the 1960s, when oil production in Western Siberia began on an industrial scale, but this is not enough to explain the level of wages in the 1950s. It should be noted that this resolution does not mention the Caucasus region – neither Baku nor Grozny. This suggests that in areas where oil production was the main one, there were no surcharges at all, in addition to the Ural one (which was also applied to Tatneft). Such a coefficient was calculated directly to the "net" earnings, excluding certain types of remuneration and certain types of allowances.

Thus, after analyzing the macro indicators, it can be concluded that, in general, wages in the Tatneft production association were higher than in the USSR industry, but lower than in the oil industry as a whole. Part of the reason for this situation can be explained by regional wage ratios, but this explanation does not work for the entire period under consideration, so the situation for the 1950s - early 1960s remains unclear.

Now let's consider what the situation in the field of remuneration was at a particular oil–producing production association - Tatneft.

***

To conduct a comprehensive analysis of the salaries of employees of the Tatneft production association, it is necessary to consider the main production indicators. Special attention is paid to the ratio of salaries to the main production indicators – the dynamics of oil production and labor productivity of industrial and production personnel in oil production in the 1950s-1980s. This section provides a basic description of the production activities of the Tatneft association and is the starting point for studying the remuneration of employees of the Association.

Figure 5 shows the dynamics of labor productivity and the average monthly salary of the Association:

Fig. 5. Dynamics of labor productivity in oil production and the average monthly salary of the PPP in oil production 1950-1985 (according to M. K. Giniatullin's monograph "Development of Tatneft" / Statistics and comments. M., 2000. pp. 143-145)

Figure 5 shows the ratio of labor productivity to wages in Tatneft. Based on the graph, it can be seen that wages up to the mid-1970s are proportional to labor productivity. This corresponds to the basic approach to stimulating labor in industry. However, a different trend has been evident on this chart since 1975: despite the constant increase in wages, labor productivity has been falling annually. The drop in labor productivity in this case was associated with the development of reserves and flooding of the main deposits ^{[14, p. 140]}. 

 Next, let's turn to Figure 6, which shows the ratio of oil production indicators and the average monthly salary of Tatneft employees in the 1950s - 1980s.

Fig. 6. Dynamics of oil production and the average monthly salary of the PPP in oil production 1950-1985 (according to M. K. Giniatullin's monograph "Development of Tatneft" / Statistics and comments. M., 2000. pp. 51, 144-145)

Figure 6 shows the same ratio of indicators as in Figure 5. These indicators do not correspond to the expected trend of wages depending on the volume of industrial production (in our case, the rate of oil production).  This phenomenon can be explained by the entry of deposits into the late stage of development, at which about 2/3 of the reserves of the field, represented by light oil, have already been extracted, and production of high-viscosity oil begins ^{[17, p. 273]}.

Thus, at first glance, a contradiction with one of the methods of labor motivation is revealed, namely, a violation of the direct relationship between labor productivity (the volume of oil produced per 1 employee) and wages. However, this schedule should not be considered as wage growth without proper productivity growth. It should be noted that for the period under review, an important fact is the complication of the process of oil production, i.e.  labor intensity, this explains the decline in labor productivity.

Let's go directly to the analysis of salaries of various categories of employees of Tatneft.

***

In the 1950s, the party-government policy in the field of remuneration was aimed at increasing the material interest of employees, increasing bonuses for over-fulfillment of plans, but these measures were more extended to workers. The difference in material payments to qualified and unskilled workers has been leveled over the last decades of Soviet power, which reduced the stimulating role of wages.

All this indicates a tendency to equalize the salaries of various categories of workers, thus, there is a convergence of the levels of payment for skilled and unskilled labor. This trend is also confirmed in studies based on data from a number of Moscow enterprises (the Hammer and Sickle factory, the Trekhgornaya Manufactory named after F. E. Dzerzhinsky) and data from the CSU on industry ^[18]. This section of the article will test the hypothesis of the equalization of salaries of various categories of workers, especially workers and IT workers in the oil industry (according to the production association Tatneft) in the 1970s - 1980s.

In archival files, data on the average annual salaries of employees of the Tatneft association have been appearing since 1968. Until that time, only the amount of the salary fund for the entire association is indicated. First, let's consider the net salary of Tatneft employees without taking into account the FMP (see Fig. 7-8).

Fig. 7. Average annual salary of various categories of industrial and production personnel (excluding FMP) in 1968 - 1985. Source: RGAE. F. 70. Op. 1, 2. (a detailed archival link is given in the appendix to this article).

Fig. 8. The average annual salary of workers and IT of industrial and production personnel (excluding FMP) in 1968 - 1985. Source: RGAE. F. 70. Op. 1, 2. (detailed archive link is given in the appendix to this article).

The graphs show the impact of the wage policy at industrial enterprises, due to which there was a slow increase in salaries for all categories of employees of the Association. The wages of workers grew most intensively, as a result of which the excess of their net wages over the net wages of ITR occurred in 1982, which, in comparison with Moscow enterprises (the Sickle and Hammer plant, the Trekhgornaya Manufactory) occurred almost ten years later ^{[18, p. 58]}, and in the future the gap in the benefit of the workers increased.

Thus, the data on the net wages of Tatneft employees confirm the hypothesis of a long-term trend of leveling the wage levels of workers and IT workers in the Soviet industry.

However, of particular interest are the data we found in archival funds about the fund of material encouragement of the Tatneft production association. Figure 9 shows the dynamics of FMP funds in terms of 1 person. It is noteworthy that the level of bonus payments for IT at the end of the period under review exceeds payments from the FMP to workers by almost 6 times per 1 person (see Fig. 9)

Fig. 9. FMP of various groups of PPP in 1973-1985 in terms of 1 person per year (RUB). Source: RGAE. F. 70. Op. 1,2. (a detailed archival link is given in the appendix to this article).

When comparing the data in Figures 8 and 9, it can be concluded that payments from the FMP for workers from 1972 to 1985 amount from 6 to 9% of net wages, while for ITR these values range from 31 to 55%. This explains the big difference in the overall salary level.

Therefore, the bonus factor was taken into account further, and the dynamics of salaries of various categories of Tatneft employees began to look as follows (see Fig. 10):

Fig. 10. Average annual salary of various categories of industrial and production personnel (taking into account FMP) in 1968 - 1985. Source: RGAE. F. 70. Op. 1, 2. (detailed archive link is given in the appendix to this article).

As we can see from the graph Fig. 10, wages of workers and employees have almost the same levels in dynamics. There is a steady difference in the salaries of workers and IT workers, and there is no clear trend towards wage convergence. The wage gap between the three categories - "workers", "employees" and "ITR" with the category "MOS (junior service personnel) and others" - is growing, as the salary policy has taken little account of the latter category.

It should be emphasized that in wages, taking into account bonuses from the FMP (which is published in statistical collections and given in summary reports), there is no tendency to equalization. To verify this statement, let us turn to Fig. 11, which shows the dynamics of salaries for the main categories of industrial and production personnel (PPP) for Tatneft (Fig.11).

Fig. 11. Average monthly salary (including payments from the FMP) PPP in oil production. Source: Giniatullin M. K. Development of Tatneft / Statistics and comments. M., 2000. pp. 144-145.

As can be seen from the graph presented above, 1950 has specifics, since only in this year the level of wages of workers exceeded the salaries of ITR (1.22 times). The rest of the time, the ratio was in favor of ITR. By the end of the salary period under review (taking into account the FMP) ITR was 1.675 times higher (see Fig. 11).

Having identified the features of the ratio of average salaries of workers and IT, we will proceed to the consideration of the bonus system.

***

As for the topic of bonuses, archival sources contain data on the bonus remuneration of employees of the Tatneft association, but there are significant gaps: the data are irregular, the structure of bonus reports often undergoes changes.

Based on the available statistical archival data, it is possible to consider in detail the structure of the material incentive fund for workers in the manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors. It is not possible to do the same for ITR, since this category is combined with others: since the beginning of 1976, it has been going on by itself. Further, in the reports there is a division into "workers", "employees" and "ITR" and "others", and then simply into "ITR and others". Since the "ITR" category is combined with the less paid categories "employees", "MOS" and "others", it is impossible to draw conclusions about the amount of bonuses for these categories. We assume that this was done in order to smooth out a serious gap in the bonuses of "workers" and "ITR".

Below is a histogram characterizing the structure of the material incentive fund for the main categories of industrial and production personnel at the beginning and end of the period under review, i.e. 1972-1985, for which detailed archival data are available. (see Fig. 12).

Fig. 12. FMP for industrial and production personnel in 1972 and in 1985 in terms of 1 employee (RUB) per year. Source: RGAE. F. 70. Op. 1. d. 3992. L. 423; Op. 2. D. 3222. L. 11.

According to Fig. 12, funds from the FMP were allocated for each ITR on average almost 1.7 times more than for workers. However, for 13 years, the structure of the financial incentive fund has not undergone any major changes. The share of the financial incentive fund for the category of "workers" changes slightly, while the amount of funds allocated to this category has increased almost 2 times.  At the same time, the amount of funds allocated for "ITR" increased at a more modest pace.

It is important for understanding the bonus system of the Tatneft production association to analyze the structure of payments for the main categories of employees of the association – "workers" and "ITR". (see Fig.13). We will consider this structure at the end of the chronological framework selected in the study, i.e. for 1985.

Fig. 13. The structure of the FMP "workers", "ITR and others" included in the PPP in 1985 in thousands of rubles. Source: RGAE. F. 70. Op. 2. D. 3222. l. 11-13.

The structure of the FMP for workers is shown in Fig. 13. Slightly more than half of the total fund (54%) is paid as remuneration for the overall results, and almost 20% as part of the bonuses for established systems, i.e. the main premium systems of the enterprise – regular bonuses for performance indicators.

We see a completely different picture with regard to premiums for ITR. Thus, 63% of the financial incentive fund is directed to the payment of bonuses for established IT systems and other categories of employees. At the same time, 17% of funds are allocated for remuneration for the overall results for this category of employees (816 thousand rubles less than for the main category). The ratio of other types of bonuses is also different.

Thus, despite the policy pursued in the USSR to equalize the incomes of various categories of workers, the stimulation of ITR work was primarily due to the premium system of enterprises ^{[19, p. 323],[20, p. 59],[21, p. 53]}.

Conclusion

 In this paper, for the first time, the dynamics of wage differentiation of employees of a large industrial association Tatneft, which produced a significant part of oil in the USSR in the 1950s - 1980s, is considered. 

 An important stage of the research was the analysis of the source base on the history of the Tatneft production association. The volume of archival sources on material incentives for employees of the Association turned out to be quite large, however, it should be noted that most of them focus on general issues of labor organization and indicators of summary statistics. It should be noted that, despite the abundance of various kinds of materials in the funds, they often do not have a clear structure, which complicates the search for the necessary information, as well as its comparison. An important place in this work is also occupied by published sources on the development of Tatneft enterprises. The information potential of the complex of the above-mentioned sources was revealed during the work.

It should also be noted that the analysis of the data revealed another non-trivial aspect in the policy of material incentives at Tatneft enterprises: with the decline in oil production indicators since 1975, there has been an increase in wages of employees of the Association. The fact is that the fields of the Association entered a more complex stage of development, the oil in them became more viscous and in order to extract it, more effort was now required, i.e. the costs of oil production increased.

The main part of this research is focused on the analysis of sources characterizing one of the main components of the labor motivation system at Tatneft enterprises – the factor of material remuneration for labor. In this paper, it is shown that wages were determined to a large extent by the productivity of workers. The material incentive was expressed not only in the level of net wages, but also in bonus payments (made from the financial incentive fund of enterprises – FMP). In the course of the study, a hypothesis was put forward about the alignment of workers' salaries and ITR, revealed earlier according to data on large Moscow enterprises in the chronological period under consideration ^[18]. An important result of the work is the confirmation of this hypothesis when analyzing the wages of various categories of workers (excluding FMP) according to the Tatneft production association in the 1960s -1980s. In 1981, these levels equalized, and in subsequent years, the wages of workers began to exceed the wages of ITR. It should be noted that a similar trend was recently revealed according to data on wages at large Moscow enterprises, where these levels equaled ten years earlier. The convergence of the level of wages of workers and IT reflects, in general, the course of the country's leadership to equalize the levels of wages in Soviet industry during the years of "stagnation". However, a new result in this work is the conclusion that this trend is not confirmed when analyzing the dynamics of the total earnings of Tatneft employees obtained by adding their salaries and bonus money received from the material incentive fund (FMP): the dynamics of this indicator, calculated for workers and ITR of Tatneft, does not reveal a trend towards on the contrary, the excess of the average amount received by the ITR over the same indicator for workers increases every year. The natural interpretation of this effect is connected, in our opinion, with the important role of tangible payments from the FMP to engineering and technical workers to motivate their skilled labor in conditions of wage equalization at industrial enterprises.

Thus, the issues of stimulating the work of engineering and technical workers at the enterprises of the Tatneft production association were solved mainly through the FMP, workers - mainly due to the growth of net wages. but despite the ongoing course to equalize the salaries of the main categories of workers, the differentiation remained noticeable due to the FMP.

Application

Detailing links from captions to drawings.

To Fig. 1-3:

1)      Statistical table of the CSU of the USSR "Average monthly monetary wages of workers and employees by branches of the national economy of the USSR in 1940, 1945, 1950-1955" [Electronic resource] // The project "Historical materials". URL: http://istmat.info/node/18454 (accessed: 03.11.2021).

2) The national economy of the USSR for 1913-1956. Brief statistical yearbook. -M.: Statistics, 1962. p. 125

3) The national economy of the USSR 1922-1972. Jubilee Statistical yearbook. -M.: Statistics, 1972 – 849. p. 350

4) The national economy of the USSR in 1964 Statistical Yearbook. -M.: Statistics, 1965. p. 555

5) The national economy of the USSR in 1965 Statistical Yearbook. -M.: Statistics, 1966. p. 567

6) The national economy of the USSR in 1967 Statistical Yearbook. -M.: Statistics, 1968. p. 657

7) The national economy of the USSR in 1968. Statistical yearbook. -M.: Statistics, 1969. p. 555

8) The national economy of the USSR in 1969 Statistical Yearbook. -M.: Statistics, 1970. p. 539

9) The national economy of the USSR in 1970 Statistical Yearbook. -M.: Statistics, 1971. p. 519

10) The national economy of the USSR in 1972. Statistical yearbook. - M.: Statistics, 1973. p. 516

11) The national economy of the USSR in 1973. Statistical yearbook. - M.: Statistics, 1974. p. 586

12) The national economy of the USSR in 1974 Statistical Yearbook. -M.: Statistics, 1975. p. 562

13) The national economy of the USSR in 1975 Statistical Yearbook. -M.: Statistics, 1976. p. 546

14) The national economy of the USSR in 1977 Statistical Yearbook. -M.: Statistics, 1978. p. 385

15) The national economy of the USSR in 1978. Statistical yearbook. - M.: Statistics, 1979. p. 372

16) The national economy of the USSR in 1979 Statistical Yearbook. -M.: Statistics, 1980. p.394.

17) The national economy of the USSR in 1980 Statistical Yearbook. -M.: Finance and Statistics, 1981. p.364.

18) The national economy of the USSR in 1982. Statistical yearbook. -M.: Finance and Statistics, 1983. p.379

19) The national economy of the USSR in 1983 Statistical Yearbook. -M.: Finance and Statistics, 1984 p.393.

20) The national economy of the USSR in 1984 Statistical Yearbook. -M.: Finance and Statistics, 1985. p.417

21) The national economy of the USSR in 1985 Statistical Yearbook. -M.: Finance and Statistics, 1986. p.397

To fig. 7, 8, 10:

RGAE. F.70. Op. 1. d. 1660. L. 368-369; D. 2250. L. 428; D. 2876. L. 387; D. 3444. L. 422; D. 3992. L. 385; D. 4572. L. 350; D. 5186. L. 336; D. 5808. L. 315; D. 6464. L. 235; d. 7120. L. 249; D. 7780. L. 71; D. 8468. L. 120; D. 9180. L. 19; Op. 2. D. 1016. L. 207; D. 1760. L. 18; D. 2519. L. 13; D. 3221. L. 16.

To fig. 9:

RGAE. F. 70. Op. 1. D. 3992. L. 423; D. 4572. L. 376; D. 5186. L. 356; D. 5808. L. 336; D. 6464. L. 250; D. 7120. L. 269; D. 7780. L. 92; D. 8468. L. 142; D. 9180. L. 42; Op. 2. d. 1017. L. 108; D. 1760. L. 137; D. 2519. L. 170; D. 3222. L. 11.