• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании1727
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации149
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы863
      • Показать ещё
      Разное1084
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели155
      • Показать ещё
      Формат86
      Издания180
      • Показать ещё
      Люди276
      • Показать ещё
      Сферы2
09 декабря, 23:58

5 Highest Growth Stocks Since Trump Victory

Experts widely believe that the stock market euphoria is largely attributable to some of the sweeping policy changes proposed by the President elect.

09 декабря, 15:05

Dreaming Big On Human Rights -- Ending Violence And Discrimination Against Women

"I learned not to be afraid. I learned how important it is to fight for a dream and, most importantly, to dream big." - Serena Williams This has been a year when many women have spoken out about the discrimination and violence that is still a reality for millions of women and girls around the world. From students to sports stars to Hollywood actresses, we have witnessed their bravery through their words. The disturbing truth is that at some point in their life, almost all women around the world will have faced discrimination of some form - whether it's sexual harassment, exclusion from education, or the relative size of their pay cheques. What's more, up to seven out of ten women and girls in the world will have been subjected to violence. By its very nature, today's UN Human Rights Day is about calling for everyone on this planet to be born free and equal in dignity and rights and to be able to lead their lives this way. So I'd encourage everyone to get behind the UN Human Rights Office's request - to "stand up for someone's rights today". In that spirit, I write this post in support of advancing women's rights and equality. The moral case for gender equality is obvious. It should not need any explanation. So let me present a different case - that empowering women and girls with equal rights is also the single most important thing we can do to drive human development, and that our vision of a poverty-free world depends on it. The good news is that it is increasingly accepted that gender equality is part of a broader development challenge. And not before time. While it is called out specifically in the UN's Sustainable Development Goal 5, it will enable all of them, whether it is Zero Hunger, Decent Work & Economic Growth, or Sustainable Cities & Communities. If we fail to tackle gender inequality, the rest of the Goals are likely to fail too. Women earn just 10% of the world's income, and own just 1% of the world's property. Yet research shows that they reinvest 90% of their income into their families, whereas men reinvest around 30-40%. If we empower women by providing equal access to land rights, finance, education, jobs, training and pay, McKinsey estimates that it will boost the global economy by around US$28 trillion. That's equivalent to the combined GDP of the world's two largest economies, the US and China. At Unilever, we are committed to building an inclusive organisation where all individuals feel safe, valued and supported - irrespective of gender, background or any other difference. And as part of that, the safety of women working across our value chain is a top priority - helping them to be productive at work, to transform their families and to fuel their economies. It can be a complex challenge, as we discovered at our Kericho tea estates in Kenya, where we have rolled out a safety for women and girls programme. We are currently working with other companies and organisations to expand it further. But this goes beyond safety, which should be a given. Empowering women is one of the most important things we - and indeed every business - can do. It's why creating Opportunities for Women is a key pillar of our Unilever Sustainable Living Plan. Women are instrumental to the functioning of our business at every level - in our fields and communities, factories and offices. They also possess innate skills and characteristics, such as long-term thinking and a more collaborative mindset, which is so valuable to our business model. Across our supply chain, we have reached 800,000 female farmers with improved opportunities and training. Our Shakti programme - employing over 100,000 women micro-entrepreneurs to distribute our products in rural areas in countries such as India - is another example. Meanwhile, 45% of our managers are women, as are half of our directors in the boardroom. Not a day goes by when I am not inspired by an amazing woman I meet working for our company. We want to go further still. In 2014 we committed to empowering 5 million women across our value chain by 2020 through access to skills and training to unlock opportunities. Two years in, we are making good progress. But we cannot afford to be complacent. We have a long way to go and there is more we can do to ensure the size and scale of our business has a positive influence through our partnerships with charities, NGOs, Governments and businesses around the world. That's why, for example, we are campaigning with the UN Women's HeForShe campaign - a global movement of men supporting women's empowerment and advocating for women's rights, and a key unlock in addressing many of the inequalities that still exist. It's also why this year we launched #Unstereotype, our commitment to change the way we portray gender in our advertising. So as we celebrate Human Rights Day - and I write 'celebrate' intentionally - think about what you can do in your organisation to promote respect for human rights everywhere, in all aspects of our lives. We all have responsibility to stop violence and discrimination against women, whether it's in our businesses, in our homes, or on our streets. We need to stand up for someone's rights today. We need to dream big. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

09 декабря, 00:24

Как бывшие менеджеры McKinsey зарабатывают на отмене авиарейсов

Роман Гильманов, основатель и генеральный директор стартапа Compensair, как-то застрял на сутки в аэропорту Чикаго на пути в Бостон. Рейс переносили пять раз, пропал билет на самолет из Бостона в Нью-Йорк. Но Гильманов сумел с огромным трудом договориться с авиакомпанией без доплаты поменять билет до Бостона стоимостью $200 на билет до Нью-Йорка, который стоил больше $1800. Так у Гильманова родилась идея заработать на посреднических услугах в получении пассажирами компенсаций от авиакомпаний. В июле 2015 г. Гильманов привлек двух партнеров – своих знакомых Дениса Симагина и Кирилла Душкина, которые на тот момент работали в McKinsey менеджерами проектов. Сам 24-летний Гильманов, выпускник мехмата МГУ, занимался акселерационными программами для стартапов в Global Venture Alliance. До этого они втроем пытались развивать стартап по телемедицине, но проект оказался неудачным. Партнеры собрали 30 000 евро стартовых инвестиций (это были личные сбережения) и в начале 2016 г. зарегистрировали в Лондоне компанию Compensair – чтобы упростить расчеты с иностранными авиакомпаниями.

09 декабря, 00:24

Бизнес на опозданиях

Роман Гильманов, основатель и генеральный директор стартапа Compensair, как-то застрял на сутки в аэропорту Чикаго на пути в Бостон. Рейс переносили пять раз, пропал билет на самолет из Бостона в Нью-Йорк. Но Гильманов сумел с огромным трудом договориться с авиакомпанией без доплаты поменять билет до Бостона стоимостью $200 на билет до Нью-Йорка, который стоил больше $1800. Так у Гильманова родилась идея заработать на посреднических услугах в получении пассажирами компенсаций от авиакомпаний. В июле 2015 г. Гильманов привлек двух партнеров – своих знакомых Дениса Симагина и Кирилла Душкина, которые на тот момент работали в McKinsey менеджерами проектов. Сам 24-летний Гильманов, выпускник мехмата МГУ, занимался акселерационными программами для стартапов в Global Venture Alliance. До этого они втроем пытались развивать стартап по телемедицине, но проект оказался неудачным. Партнеры собрали 30 000 евро стартовых инвестиций (это были личные сбережения) и в начале 2016 г. зарегистрировали в Лондоне компанию Compensair – чтобы упростить расчеты с иностранными авиакомпаниями.

08 декабря, 18:14

Умные автомобили пошли в народ

Через пару лет каждый третий новый российский автомобиль будет подключен к интернету и различным онлайн-сервисам, помогающим водителю. Именно автопром будет законодателем моды в мире «интернета вещей».

08 декабря, 18:14

Умные автомобили пошли в народ

Через пару лет каждый третий новый российский автомобиль будет подключен к интернету и различным онлайн-сервисам, помогающим водителю. Именно автопром будет законодателем моды в мире "интернета вещей".

08 декабря, 17:00

Новый феодализм и будущее

Признаюсь честно: у меня не было особого желания продолжать обсуждение этой темы, однако обсуждение различных сценариев будущего, которое совсем недавно прошло в этом блоге, действительно нуждается в некотором послесловии. Затронем несколько аспектов: личный риск-менеджмент в условиях неопределенного будущего, источники информации по вопросу новой промышленной революции и несколько слов о положении России в контексте предстоящих технологических […]

08 декабря, 13:04

50 Best Companies to Work for in 2017. Did Your Company Make It?

The best companies in the U.S. value their employees, pay them fairly, and provide ways for them to grow in their careers.

07 декабря, 20:10

TRANSPARENCY: Obama’s Pentagon Suppresses Study Finding $125 Billion in Wasteful Spending. That’s…

TRANSPARENCY: Obama’s Pentagon Suppresses Study Finding $125 Billion in Wasteful Spending. That’s $125 billion annually. President Barack Obama’s Pentagon discredited and suppressed an internal probe that uncovered $125 billion in wasteful spending on the enormous administrative operations primarily ran by civilians and contractors. The money could have been reinvested in payment for troops, weapons, and […]

Выбор редакции
07 декабря, 18:16

Supply Chain to CEO: Bali Padda Takes the Helm at Lego

Lego, the iconic and highly profitable Danish toymaker, is the latest business to be headed by an executive rising out of supply chain to the role of CEO. Business press covering the story largely focuses on the departure of current CEO and ex-McKinsey consultant Jorgen Vig Knudstorp, whose 12-year stint [...]

07 декабря, 18:11

The Most Feminist White House In History Just Made One Of Its Last Moves On Equal Pay

It’s the eleventh hour and the White House is not giving up on the fight for women’s pay equality. On Wednesday, the Obama administration announced that 44 more companies, many of them well-known brand names such as AT&T, Estee Lauder and InterContinental Hotels, signed on to its equal pay pledge, affirming their commitment to paying men and women fairly and bringing the number of companies on that list to over 100. It’s a bittersweet moment in the administration’s sustained campaign for equal pay, which began almost the moment Barack Obama took office and has included a mix of legislation, executive orders, funding for research and corporate prodding. “We want to thank the Obama administration for not just an effective use of the bully pulpit but an important use of executive authority to push the equal pay issue forward,” Lisa Maatz, the vice president of government relations at the nonprofit American Association of University Women, a leading advocate for women’s equality. “That’s something the Trump administration and Congress needs to think about.” The Republican Party’s threats to roll back various elements of the equal pay agenda will do harm to people’s paychecks, she emphasized. Those rollbacks, of a regulation seeking to grant more workers overtime pay, for example ― something that would affect more women than men ―  seem “antithetical” to Donald Trump’s agenda to raise the pay and prospects of the nation’s workers, she said. It’s also unclear if Trump will roll back a separate initiative set to begin in 2018 that would require companies to report data on gender, race and pay. Certainly, Obama had hoped to pass on the equal pay mantle to an administration just as ― if not more ― committed to closing the pay gap. Instead, the incoming Trump administration has expressed little to no interest in continuing the fight for pay equality ― beyond empty statements made by the president-elect’s daughter Ivanka. Indeed, one of Trump’s only policies that touches on the issue ― a misguided maternity leave proposal that doesn’t include anyone except married women who physically give birth ― poses the risk of exacerbating the gender pay gap by making women less desirable employees. When so-called “women’s issues” come up, President-elect Trump has so far handed them off to his daughter. The New York Times reported that when House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently rang Trump to discuss these issues, he put Ivanka on the phone. And while she has publicly spoken out in favor of equal pay for women, there’s little sign she or her dad understand that closing the pay gap has profound economic implications. Women make up about half of the labor force and run near a majority of the households in this country; paying them fairly would lift the entire economy. Put another way, this isn’t a “women’s issue” best left to a de facto first lady. Achieving gender parity in the workforce could add $4.3 trillion to the economy by 2025, a report from McKinsey found. “Inequality in the workforce doesn’t just adversely affect women; it affects our families and our broader economy,” White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett said in a statement to The Huffington Post. The equality pledge certainly signals that the fight for equal pay would continue beyond the Obama administration, but it seems clear that this battle is moving into the private sector and academia. On Wednesday, some of the companies who have signed on to the pay pledge also announced a partnership with Simmons College, which will help that group ― Employers for Pay Equity ― solidify best practices and develop better hiring, promotion and pay policies. “The ultimate goal is to get more women into leadership and pay equity,” said Elisa Van Dam, senior director of executive education at the Simmons School of Management. The election has left many who care about equal pay feeling “distressed and concerned,” Van Dam said. But also “feeling like our work is more important than ever.” Separately on Wednesday, the CEOs of about two dozen other large companies ― including Bank of America and Accenture ― announced an initiative meant to get more women up the executive ladder. Called the Paradigm for Parity, the group’s expressed goal is getting women into 50 percent of leadership roles in corporate America by 2030. Right now women hold about 19 percent of “C-suite” positions. And on Tuesday, a group of investors publicly called for Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and other major financial companies to publicly disclose their gender pay data. Taken together, these moves demonstrate that for many firms there is a real commitment to paying women fairly that will last beyond the Obama administration. “No doubt this election has been really emotional; we need to focus on moving forward together,” Ashley Goldsmith, chief people officer at Workday, told HuffPost. The HR software company is one of the latest crop of signatories on the pledge. “I don’t think this topic will drop off. It’s something that all of us should address regardless of the administration.” For global businesses seeking to hire more women, the equal pay issue isn’t going away. And in recent years, more employers have taken the initiative on pay ― Salesforce spent $3 million handing out raises to women to eliminate bias in their payroll. Workday, for its part, developed real-time software to track pay and promotions to seek out bias. Other firms have voluntarily started reporting data on pay. Fair pay isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s good business, Maatz said. When women aren’t paid fairly, they quit their jobs. Equal pay fosters higher retention rates and raises productivity, research has shown. In 2016, women on average make 80 cents for every dollar a white man earns, a slight improvement from 77 cents on the dollar when Obama took office. The gap is worse for black women (63 cents) and Latinas (54 cents).   It’s doubtful that the private sector alone would be able to close the persistent gap. First, the pay gap is extremely complicated. Women earn less than men because of deeply entrenched biases that kick up almost at birth, as girls are encouraged to do certain kinds of work. They’re built into the pay for jobs ― janitors, mostly male, for example, make more money than housekeepers, mostly female. Jobs that are majority female pay less than jobs that are majority male, research has shown. Pay gaps are even wider at the very top of the job market, where women may be unable to compete because of responsibilities at home ― and where entrenched bias over what a “real boss” looks like remain. There are missing public policies that would go much further than private initiatives. For example, raising the minimum wage would lift the pay of millions of women who make up the majority of low-income earners. A fair and equitable parental leave policy would keep more women in the workforce, raising their earning potential and pay. Child care policies that made it easier for women to work and care for their kids wouldn’t hurt either. Some of this will happen and is happening at the local level. Last year alone 36 bills regarding equal pay were proposed by state legislatures ― six of them passed, in places such as Nebraska, Utah and Massachusetts. Measures involved prohibiting retaliation for workers who discuss pay, forbidding employers from asking about a candidate’s pay history and increasing penalties for business who violate equal pay laws. “The will for equal pay is at a high tide,” the AAUW’s Maatz said. “Even if Trump falls down, state legislatures will keep this going.” -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

07 декабря, 18:11

The Most Feminist White House In History Just Made One Of Its Last Moves On Equal Pay

It’s the eleventh hour and the White House is not giving up on the fight for women’s pay equality. On Wednesday, the Obama administration announced that 44 more companies, many of them well-known brand names such as AT&T, Estee Lauder and InterContinental Hotels, signed on to its equal pay pledge, affirming their commitment to paying men and women fairly and bringing the number of companies on that list to over 100. It’s a bittersweet moment in the administration’s sustained campaign for equal pay, which began almost the moment Barack Obama took office and has included a mix of legislation, executive orders, funding for research and corporate prodding. “We want to thank the Obama administration for not just an effective use of the bully pulpit but an important use of executive authority to push the equal pay issue forward,” Lisa Maatz, the vice president of government relations at the nonprofit American Association of University Women, a leading advocate for women’s equality. “That’s something the Trump administration and Congress needs to think about.” The Republican Party’s threats to roll back various elements of the equal pay agenda will do harm to people’s paychecks, she emphasized. Those rollbacks, of a regulation seeking to grant more workers overtime pay, for example ― something that would affect more women than men ―  seem “antithetical” to Donald Trump’s agenda to raise the pay and prospects of the nation’s workers, she said. It’s also unclear if Trump will roll back a separate initiative set to begin in 2018 that would require companies to report data on gender, race and pay. Certainly, Obama had hoped to pass on the equal pay mantle to an administration just as ― if not more ― committed to closing the pay gap. Instead, the incoming Trump administration has expressed little to no interest in continuing the fight for pay equality ― beyond empty statements made by the president-elect’s daughter Ivanka. Indeed, one of Trump’s only policies that touches on the issue ― a misguided maternity leave proposal that doesn’t include anyone except married women who physically give birth ― poses the risk of exacerbating the gender pay gap by making women less desirable employees. When so-called “women’s issues” come up, President-elect Trump has so far handed them off to his daughter. The New York Times reported that when House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently rang Trump to discuss these issues, he put Ivanka on the phone. And while she has publicly spoken out in favor of equal pay for women, there’s little sign she or her dad understand that closing the pay gap has profound economic implications. Women make up about half of the labor force and run near a majority of the households in this country; paying them fairly would lift the entire economy. Put another way, this isn’t a “women’s issue” best left to a de facto first lady. Achieving gender parity in the workforce could add $4.3 trillion to the economy by 2025, a report from McKinsey found. “Inequality in the workforce doesn’t just adversely affect women; it affects our families and our broader economy,” White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett said in a statement to The Huffington Post. The equality pledge certainly signals that the fight for equal pay would continue beyond the Obama administration, but it seems clear that this battle is moving into the private sector and academia. On Wednesday, some of the companies who have signed on to the pay pledge also announced a partnership with Simmons College, which will help that group ― Employers for Pay Equity ― solidify best practices and develop better hiring, promotion and pay policies. “The ultimate goal is to get more women into leadership and pay equity,” said Elisa Van Dam, senior director of executive education at the Simmons School of Management. The election has left many who care about equal pay feeling “distressed and concerned,” Van Dam said. But also “feeling like our work is more important than ever.” Separately on Wednesday, the CEOs of about two dozen other large companies ― including Bank of America and Accenture ― announced an initiative meant to get more women up the executive ladder. Called the Paradigm for Parity, the group’s expressed goal is getting women into 50 percent of leadership roles in corporate America by 2030. Right now women hold about 19 percent of “C-suite” positions. And on Tuesday, a group of investors publicly called for Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and other major financial companies to publicly disclose their gender pay data. Taken together, these moves demonstrate that for many firms there is a real commitment to paying women fairly that will last beyond the Obama administration. “No doubt this election has been really emotional; we need to focus on moving forward together,” Ashley Goldsmith, chief people officer at Workday, told HuffPost. The HR software company is one of the latest crop of signatories on the pledge. “I don’t think this topic will drop off. It’s something that all of us should address regardless of the administration.” For global businesses seeking to hire more women, the equal pay issue isn’t going away. And in recent years, more employers have taken the initiative on pay ― Salesforce spent $3 million handing out raises to women to eliminate bias in their payroll. Workday, for its part, developed real-time software to track pay and promotions to seek out bias. Other firms have voluntarily started reporting data on pay. Fair pay isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s good business, Maatz said. When women aren’t paid fairly, they quit their jobs. Equal pay fosters higher retention rates and raises productivity, research has shown. In 2016, women on average make 80 cents for every dollar a white man earns, a slight improvement from 77 cents on the dollar when Obama took office. The gap is worse for black women (63 cents) and Latinas (54 cents).   It’s doubtful that the private sector alone would be able to close the persistent gap. First, the pay gap is extremely complicated. Women earn less than men because of deeply entrenched biases that kick up almost at birth, as girls are encouraged to do certain kinds of work. They’re built into the pay for jobs ― janitors, mostly male, for example, make more money than housekeepers, mostly female. Jobs that are majority female pay less than jobs that are majority male, research has shown. Pay gaps are even wider at the very top of the job market, where women may be unable to compete because of responsibilities at home ― and where entrenched bias over what a “real boss” looks like remain. There are missing public policies that would go much further than private initiatives. For example, raising the minimum wage would lift the pay of millions of women who make up the majority of low-income earners. A fair and equitable parental leave policy would keep more women in the workforce, raising their earning potential and pay. Child care policies that made it easier for women to work and care for their kids wouldn’t hurt either. Some of this will happen and is happening at the local level. Last year alone 36 bills regarding equal pay were proposed by state legislatures ― six of them passed, in places such as Nebraska, Utah and Massachusetts. Measures involved prohibiting retaliation for workers who discuss pay, forbidding employers from asking about a candidate’s pay history and increasing penalties for business who violate equal pay laws. “The will for equal pay is at a high tide,” the AAUW’s Maatz said. “Even if Trump falls down, state legislatures will keep this going.” -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
07 декабря, 16:15

McKinsey: потери банков РФ могут снизиться на 20 млрд долларов при восстановлении экономики

Кредитные потери российских банков могут снизиться на 20 млрд долларов к 2020 году при улучшении ситуации в экономике. Об этом говорится в отчете McKinsey о мировом банковском секторе.

Выбор редакции
07 декабря, 16:09

McKinsey: потери банков РФ могут снизиться на $20 млрд при восстановлении экономики

В отчете компании о мировом банковском секторе говорится, что текущий консенсус предсказывает улучшение экономической ситуации к 2020 году

07 декабря, 04:40

Cutting Waste Isn't Enough to Curb Pentagon Spending

Benjamin H. Friedman Security, Treating the Defense Department like a profit-making company is a serious mistake. The Pentagon killed a 2015 report showing wasteful administrative spending, according to a Washington Post exposé by Craig Whitlock and Bob Woodward. The report, authored by McKinsey consultants for the Defense Business Board, a DoD advisory body consisting mostly of corporate executives, estimated that the Pentagon could save $75–150 billion over five years by becoming more efficient and using the savings to pay for combat forces. According to the Post, Pentagon officials feared that the report, ambitiously titled “Transforming DoD’s Business Processes for Revolutionary Change,” would offer ammunition to those demanding military budget cuts, so they prevented its publication. Of course it leaked. It’s unfortunate that Pentagon officials killed the report. But their quoted complaints about its shallowness and lack of content are fair. The report claims to map a “clear path” to savings, a line the Post approvingly repeats. What it actually delivers—in seventy-seven PowerPoint slides of vacuous consultant-speak—is some good information about the Pentagon’s administrative workforce and vague reform ideas, which fail to identify “waste” and seem unlikely to save money. Read full article

Выбор редакции
06 декабря, 21:06

Pentagon Buries Study Revealing $125 Billion In Waste On "Bloated Bureaucracy"

The Pentagon's goal was simple, empower the Defense Business Board (DBB), a federal advisory panel of corporate executives, to retain consultants to identify potential cost savings in the Department of Defense's $580 billion budget.  But, when the DBB study revealed a "clear path to saving over $125 billion," a level of waste which spoke to the egregious mismanagement and incompetence of DoD leaders, it was clear something had to be done to bury the story.  Now, according to the Washington Post, that is exactly what happened. The Pentagon has buried an internal study that exposed $125 billion in administrative waste in its business operations amid fears Congress would use the findings as an excuse to slash the defense budget, according to interviews and confidential memos obtained by The Washington Post.   Pentagon leaders had requested the study to help make their enormous back-office bureaucracy more efficient and reinvest any savings in combat power. But after the project documented far more wasteful spending than expected, senior defense officials moved swiftly to kill it by discrediting and suppressing the results.   The report, issued in January 2015, identified “a clear path” for the Defense Department to save $125 billion over five years. The plan would not have required layoffs of civil servants or reductions in military personnel. Instead, it would have streamlined the bureaucracy through attrition and early retirements, curtailed high-priced contractors and made better use of information technology.   The study was produced last year by the Defense Business Board with help from consultants with McKinsey and Company. Their report revealed for the first time that the Pentagon was spending almost a quarter of its $580 billion budget on overhead and core business operations such as accounting, human resources, logistics and property management.   The data further showed that the Defense Department was paying a staggering number of people — 1,014,000 contractors, civilians and uniformed personnel — to fill back-office jobs far from the front lines. That workforce supports 1.3 million troops on active duty, the fewest since 1940.   Pentagon officials had hoped to use the cost-cutting report to identify opportunities to eliminate "waste" that could be converted to direct spending for troops and weapons.  But when the report highlighted too much waste, senior officials grew concerned that Congress might attempt to reduce their budget instead.  So, they did what any bloated, corrupt government organization would do when faced with the same choice...they made everyone sign confidentiality agreements promising to never speak of the study and removed all copies of the report from public websites. For the military, the major allure of the study was that it called for reallocating the $125 billion for troops and weapons. Among other options, the savings could have paid a large portion of the bill to rebuild the nation’s aging nuclear arsenal, or the operating expenses for 50 Army brigades.   But some Pentagon leaders said they fretted that by spotlighting so much waste, the study would undermine their repeated public assertions that years of budget austerity had left the armed forces starved of funds. Instead of providing more money, they said, they worried Congress and the White House might decide to cut deeper.   So the plan was killed. The Pentagon imposed secrecy restrictions on the data making up the study, which ensured no one could replicate the findings. A 77-page summary report that had been made public was removed from a Pentagon website. Now that the cat's out of the bag, Pentagon officials have no choice but to discredit the study at all costs. After the board finished its analysis, however, Work changed his position. In an interview with The Post, he did not dispute the board’s findings about the size or scope of the bureaucracy. But he dismissed the $125 billion savings proposal as “unrealistic” and said the business executives had failed to grasp basic obstacles to restructuring the public sector.   “There is this meme that we’re some bloated, giant organization,” he said. “Although there is a little bit of truth in that . . . I think it vastly overstates what’s really going on.”   "We will never be as efficient as a commercial organization,” Work said. “We’re the largest bureaucracy in the world. There’s going to be some inherent inefficiencies in that.” Frank Kendall III, the Pentagon’s chief weapons-buyer, did the same saying the cost savings estimate was nothing more than "a ballpark, made-up number." “Are you trying to tell me we don’t know how to do our job?” he said, according to two participants in the meeting. He said he needed to hire 1,000 more people to work directly under him, not fewer.   “If you don’t believe me, call in an auditor,” replied Klepper, the board’s restructuring expert. “They’ll tell you it’s even worse than this.”   In an interview, Kendall acknowledged he was “very disappointed” by the board’s work, which he criticized as “shallow” and “very low on content.” He said the study had ignored efforts by his agencies to become more efficient, and he accused the board of plucking the $125 billion figure out of thin air.   “It was essentially a ballpark, made-up number,” he said.   Still, Kendall knew that lawmakers might view the study as credible. Alarmed, he said, he went to Work and warned that the findings could “be used as a weapon” against the Pentagon.   "If the impression that’s created is that we’ve got a bunch of money lying around and we’re being lazy and we’re not doing anything to save money, then it’s harder to justify getting budgets that we need,” Kendall said. Of course, while every effort was made to hide this $125 billion in "made-up" cost savings, we suspect there may be some in the incoming administation that may like to dive a little deeper.   My contract with the American voter will restore honesty, accountability & CHANGE to Washington! #DrainTheSwamp pic.twitter.com/sbVwctT1Sj — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 25, 2016

06 декабря, 20:18

Пентагон нагрел американцев

Чиновники Минобороны США "зарыли" доклад о своих хозяйственных тратах на 125 миллиардов долларов, испугавшись, что Конгресс и Белый дом, сократят оборонный бюджет страны, пишет Washington Post со ссылкой на конфиденциальные данные

06 декабря, 11:01

Киберфеодализм: послесловие

Признаюсь честно: у меня не было особого желания продолжать обсуждение этой темы, однако обсуждение различных сценариев будущего, которое совсем недавно прошло в этом блоге, действительно нуждается в некотором послесловии. Затронем несколько аспектов: личный риск-менеджмент в условиях неопределенного будущего, источники информации по вопросу новой промышленной революции и несколько слов о положении России в контексте предстоящих технологических изменений.Поехали1. Риск-менеджментВ финансовом мире есть хорошая поговорка "ты должен навсегда определиться что для тебя важнее: быть правым или заработать деньги". Казалось бы, правильный прогноз и должен обеспечивать заработок, но это не так. В финансовом мире полно людей, которые неплохо прогнозируют, но катастрофически неспособны зарабатывать деньги на сколь-нибудь длинных дистанциях. Идеальных прогнозов и идеальных прогнозистов не бывает. Более того, существуют обоснованные сомнения в возможности хоть сколь-нибудь надежного прогнозирования состояния сложных систем на длительных отрезках времени. Если сформулировать в очень-очень грубой форме, то на длинных дистанциях, и в финансовом мире и в геополитике, выигрывают не те у кого прогнозы лучше, а те кто позиционируются таким образом, чтобы извлечь максимальную выгоду в том случае, если их прогноз - точный, и минимизировать ущерб в случае, если он не оправдается.Теперь перейдем к конкретному случаю. Чем отличаются друг от друга различные сценарии будущего экономического и социального устройства? Если смотреть на уровне рядового гражданина, то фундаментальное отличие сценариев фактически одно: высота планки его личного входа в новый экономический уклад.В моем базовом сценарии, который многим показался необоснованно пессимистичным, эта "планка" стоит высоко, т.е. ее преодолевают "1-2% топовых специалистов различных профессий, специалисты по новым технологиям (робототехника, биоинженерия, техно-ВПК и т.д.), а также держатели капитала"В более мягком сценарии, эта "планка" стоит низко, т.е. большинство участников экономической деятельности ее сравнительно легко преодолевают. Включается логика вроде "ну, если что, пройду шестимесячные курсы по вождению дрона и все будет норм".В еще более мягком сценарии, этой "планки" вообще нет, т.е. ожидается, что всем членам общества будет предоставлен высокий безусловный доход или что интеграция в экономику нового типа вообще пройдет без усилий.Все сценарии - возможны. О том какой из них реализуется можно увлеченно спорить, но это занятие для любителей. Однако, с точки зрения личного риск-менеджмента, они очень неравноценные.Если конкретный человек берет в качестве рабочего сценария наиболее жесткий и готовится к нему, то происходит следующее:- если реализуется именно такое "черное" будущее, то у него все в порядке- если реализуется более мягкий сценарий, то у него тоже все в порядке, потому что с высокой долей вероятности нахождение в 1-2% лучших представителей своей профессии или специализация в одном из секторов, которые и обеспечат новый технологический прорыв, предполагают высокое качество жизни и соответствующий социальный статус.Цена ошибки прогноза в этом варианте... наверное равна упущенной выгоде и упущенному удовольствию от карьеры креативного дизайнера собачьих причесок, от которой пришлось отказаться для того чтобы заниматься, например, роботостроением.Если в качестве рабочего сценария берется самый мягкий ("нулевая планка") или просто мягкий ("низкая планка"), то ценой ошибки прогноза будет падение на самое дно общества или (если планка - высоко, но ее можно взять) необходимость прилагать в будущем, в условиях цейтнота, некие нечеловеческие усилия для ускоренной интеграции в новую экономическую формацию.Решать опять же предстоит каждому самостоятельно. Спорить о сценариях - скучно.2. Рекомендуемые источникиНачну с цитаты Путина:«Новые технологии способны снизить привлекательность традиционных отраслей. А изменение профессиональных требований и автоматизация производств на новой базе при отсутствии должной системы переподготовки кадров могут вызвать и структурную безработицу», — сказал Путин.«Вместе с тем этот процесс таит в себе и немалые риски, прежде всего для тех стран, которые не сумели поймать технологическую волну и, конечно, в этом случае они могу оказаться на обочине прогресса и тем самым стать аутсайдерами конкурентной борьбы», — подвел итог президент. - https://rns.online/economy/Putin-bez-sistemi-perepodgotovki-kadrov-novie-tehnologii-mogut-vizvat-bezrabotitsu--2016-11-10/ Может слова Путина убедят кого-то внимательно посмотреть на свою профессию и свое положение в профессии и подумать на тему рисков оказаться в "структурной безработице", а потом подумать на эту же тему в отношении своих детей. Хотя вариант "сейчас Путин организует мне курсы переподготовки кадров и все будет хорошо" тоже может кому-то понравиться.Делать "книжную полку" с упором на будущее у меня сейчас нет времени, но всем желающим могу дать неплохую отправную точку для собственных исследований.В 2013 году, McKinsey выпустил большой доклад о технологиях будущего и о том как они повлияют на конкретные сектора экономики и на общество в целом - http://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functions/McKinsey%20Digital/Our%20Insights/Disruptive%20technologies/MGI_Disruptive_technologies_Full_report_May2013.ashx Доклад ценен не сам по себе, а как коллекция источников (там их хорошо за 100), которые использовались для его создания.Позволю себе краткую цитату из выводов:"Главным вызовом для властей будут последствия технологий, которые имеют сильное потенциальное воздействие на занятость. К 2025, технологии, которые поднимают производительность за счет автоматизации работ, которые нельзя автоматизировать сегодня, могут быть на пути к широкому распространению. Исторически, когда вводились технологии экономящие труд, создавались новые рабочие места, которые производили еще больше добавленной стоимости. Это обычно происходит на длительных интервалах. Однако, производительность без инноваций, которые приводят к появлению новых рабочих мест с большей добавленной стоимостью приводит к безработице и экономическим проблемам, а некоторые новые технологии, такие как автоматизация работ связанных со знаниями (информацией), могут очень сильно поднять планку в плане умений, которыми должны будут владеть работники для того чтобы быть конкурентоспособными. Принимая во внимание большое количество рабочих мест, которые будут затронуты такими технологиями как продвинутая робототехника и автоматическая обработка информации, государству следует учитывать последствия увеличивающегося разрыва между будущим тех, кто обладает очень высокими компетенциями и тех у кого их нет".3. На фотографии, приложенной к посту, изображены медалисты сборной России, которая заняла первое место в зачете по очкам европейского чемпионата рабочих профессий Euroskills (российский перевод крайне неудачный, так как в данном случае под "рабочими профессиями" подразумевается в том числе робототехника и программирование). Эти чемпионы будут работать в том числе наставниками на российских предприятиях, а также участвовать в других проектах модернизации российской экономики. Год назад наша команда не могла попасть в десятку сильнейших.Как всегда, незлым тихим словом поминаю наше журналистское сообщество, которое не хочет уделять особого внимания таким победам и событиям.В России есть программа НТИ (https://asi.ru/nti/), которая активно (с ошибками, проблемами, задержками и всеми остальными вещами, свойственными любым крупным проектам) работает над тем, чтобы мы, как страна, не оказались аутсайдерами в будущем. Желающим вот прямо сейчас написать, что все плохо и мы все умрем и что это никогда не кончится, предлагаю или брать билет в Калифорнию (где их невероятный ум и креативность должна им принести миллионы) или показать свои организаторские способности в оппозиционной политической деятельности (а до тех пор пока они могут только бухтеть в интернете их логично считать организационными импотентами). А вот при наличии конструктивных предложений их лучше писать прямо в Агентство стратегических инициатив.Желающим попробовать на вкус нынешнее восприятие вопроса технологической революции в одном из наиболее влиятельных сегментов российского экспертного сообщества, могу предложить найти в интернете лекции Щедровицкого. Подозреваю, что и стиль и тезисы многим не понравятся, но это тот человек, который в 2005 делал программу адаптации атомной отрасли к технологическим и экономическим вызовам на следующие 10 лет. Результат — вполне неплохой, так что как минимум внимательно послушать — стоит.На сегодня — все.

06 декабря, 10:49

Пентагон скрыл доклад о хозяйственных тратах на 125 млрд долларов

Пентагон скрыл доклад о своих хозяйственных тратах на 125 млрд долларов, опасаясь урезания оборонного бюджета страны, сообщили осведомленные источники. Пентагон заказал исследование, которое помогло бы сделать административную работу министерства эффективнее и реинвестировать сэкономленные средства в расширение ее возможностей. Однако когда документ показал расходы значительно выше ожидаемых, высокопоставленные чиновники министерства решили скрыть результаты, передает РИА «Новости» со ссылкой на издание Washington Post.

06 декабря, 08:37

Пентагон скрыл доклад о хозяйственных тратах на 125 млрд долларов

Пентагон скрыл доклад о своих хозяйственных тратах на 125 млрд долларов, опасаясь урезания оборонного бюджета страны, сообщили осведомленные источники. Пентагон заказал исследование, которое помогло бы сделать административную работу министерства эффективнее и реинвестировать сэкономленные средства в расширение ее возможностей. Однако когда документ показал расходы значительно выше ожидаемых, высокопоставленные чиновники министерства решили скрыть результаты, передает РИА «Новости» со ссылкой на издание Washington Post. Изначально 77-страничный доклад появился на сайте Пентагона, но его вскоре убрали, сообщает издание. Исследование, составленное в 2015 году комитетом по оборонным заказам и консультантами из McKinsey, выявило, что траты Пентагона на служебные операции, в том числе на бухгалтерию, человеческие ресурсы, снабжение и управление имуществом, составляют практически четверть от 580-миллиардного бюджета ведомства. Данные в докладе также говорят о том, что минобороны США содержит более 1 млн человек, в том числе подрядчиков и гражданских сотрудников, которые занимаются обеспечением деятельности примерно 1,3 млн военных, находящихся на действительной службе – наименьшее число войск с 1940 года. Доклад об оптимизации работы министерства может найти восприимчивую аудиторию в лице избранного президента США Дональда Трампа, который обещал проведение обширных работ в министерстве, сообщает издание. Напомним, в будущем финансовом году в бюджете США заложено 350 млн долларов для оказания военной помощи Украине. Кроме того, в начале ноября Пентагон попросил на завершение разработки F-35 еще 500 млн долларов. Помимо этого, в сентябре Пентагон заявил о намерении развивать ядерную триаду США. Расходы на модернизацию стратегических ядерных сил США, которую планируется провести в течение 20 лет, составят от 350 до 450 млрд долларов. Газета ВЗГЛЯД подробно сообщала о борьбе за бюджет Пентагона в США.

20 ноября 2015, 16:50

Книга о рисках роботизации получила приз FT/McKinsey

Бестселлер Мартина Форда "Восхождение роботов: технологии и угроза будущего без работы" назван лучшей книгой для бизнеса 2015 г. по версии издания Financial Times и консалтинговой компании McKinsey & Company.

18 февраля 2014, 14:14

Успехи Техаса и США: нефть и газ животворящие :)

Richard W. Fisher, President and CEOFederal Reserve Bank of DallasDallas, Texas February 11, 2014             - - - - - - - 05 Февраль 2014 О ценах на газ в США http://iv-g.livejournal.com/997777.html   23 Октябрь 2013 U.S. Natural Gas Proved Reserves, 2011. 2 http://iv-g.livejournal.com/956077.html   28 Август 2013 McKinsey: Five opportunities for US growth and renewal (Energy) http://iv-g.livejournal.com/931584.html  26 Август 2013 API.org: Инфографика о добыче сланцевых нефти и газа. 2 http://iv-g.livejournal.com/931067.html   24 Август 2013 API.org: Инфографика о добыче сланцевых нефти и газа http://iv-g.livejournal.com/929565.html   17 Январь 2013 IEA: World Energy Outlook 2012. Presentation to the press http://iv-g.livejournal.com/818512.html  26 Декабрь 2012 forbes: Влияние нетрадиционных газа и нефти на экономику США http://iv-g.livejournal.com/806390.html   25 Июль 2012 Занятость в США и добыча углеводородов http://iv-g.livejournal.com/715320.html     28 Март 2012 Citigroup report. Energy 2020: North America as the new Middle East http://iv-g.livejournal.com/633928.html