font size

ORDER of Rosstat dated 21-02-2013 70 ON THE APPROVAL OF METHODS FOR CALCULATION OF INDICATORS FOR ASSESSING THE PERFORMANCE OF MANAGERS... Relevant in 2018

Appendix 2. TIME METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATION OF THE INDICATOR "INCREASE IN HIGHLY PRODUCTIVE JOBS, IN PERCENTAGE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR"

1. This methodology was developed in pursuance of the order of the Government Russian Federation dated December 27, 2012 N 2550-r and is designed to calculate the indicator included in the list of indicators for evaluating the performance of senior officials (heads of senior executive bodies state power) subjects of the Russian Federation to create favorable conditions for doing business.

p - increase (decrease) in high-performance jobs (HWPW), %

Z_i - number of VPRM in the reporting year

Z_i - 1 - the number of VPRMs in the previous year.

The number of high-performance jobs (HWPW) in the reporting year is determined by the formula:

Z_i = Z_i1 + Z_i2 + Z_i3 + Z_i4 + Z_i5,

Z_i1 - the number of VPRM in organizations (except for small ones) of the following types economic activity: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K;

POM(V)_i =	D
	1 - d_i	, (2)

POM(V)_i - turnover of small enterprises of the i-th type of economic activity, which is conditionally equated to the production of goods and services,

N 1-enterprise

The value of the turnover criterion (for an individual entrepreneur - revenue) per 1 occupied workplace is set depending on the type of economic activity.

POM(V)_i =	D
	(1 - d_i) x (v_i / o_i)	, (3)

POM(V)_i - turnover of small enterprises of the i-th type of economic activity,

D - value added per job occupied,

d_i - the share of intermediate consumption in the output of goods and services of the i-th type of economic activity, determined on the basis of data in the form N 1-enterprise "Basic information about the organization's activities",

v_i / o_i - the ratio of the output of goods and services to the turnover of the i-th type of economic activity, determined on the basis of data in the form N 1-enterprise "Basic information about the activities of the organization".

O(V)(m)_i - the size of the turnover of a small enterprise (revenue of an individual entrepreneur) of the i-th type of economic activity, per 1 occupied workplace (for an individual entrepreneur - the number of people employed in the business);

O(V)_i - turnover of a small enterprise (revenue of an individual entrepreneur) of the i-th type of economic activity;

Z_i - the number of jobs replaced (for an individual entrepreneur - the number of people employed in business).

V_month - revenue of an individual entrepreneur who was included in the list sample with the main type of activity related to class 52 of OKVED (without 52.7) for the reporting month;

d_III - share of proceeds from retail goods in the III quarter in the annual revenue of an individual entrepreneur who fell into the list sample with the main type of activity belonging to class 52 of OKVED (without 52.7).

V_month - revenue of an individual entrepreneur who fell into the list sample with the main type of activity related to OKVED subclass 52.7 for the reporting month;

12 is the number of months in a year.

7.2. Enterprises with highly productive jobs are identified.

To do this, enterprises (individual entrepreneurs) are selected from the sample set, whose turnover (revenue) per 1 substituted workplace (1 working in business) O(V)(m)_i >= threshold value according to the OKVED class, to which this enterprise (individual entrepreneur),

Z_vp - the number of high-performance jobs in small or micro enterprises, or individual entrepreneurs;

Z_j - the number of jobs for employees on the payroll and external part-time workers at the j-th enterprise (for an individual entrepreneur - the number of employees in the business);

W_j is the weight of the j-th enterprise (individual entrepreneur) in the sample;

n is the number of small, micro-enterprises, individual entrepreneurs with highly productive jobs.

The tax service and the ONF calculated the number of highly productive jobs in Russia - their data turned out to be more positive than Rosstat's estimates. Vladimir Putin instructed to bring the number of such places to 25 million by 2020

In 2012, starting his third term as president, Vladimir Putin directed that by 2020 there should be at least 25 million high-performance jobs (HWPWs) in the Russian economy, but he did not say how such jobs should be defined and counted. Since then, an adequate methodology has not appeared (the official methodology, on which Rosstat stopped, continues to cause a lot of criticism). At the same time, the creation of highly productive jobs is not only the formal goal of Putin's May decrees, but also an element of discussions around the future economic program that the president will choose. Growth in VPRM is central to the Growth Strategy program of Boris Titov and his associates, and Alexei Kudrin's Center for Strategic Research (CSR) focuses a lot on increasing labor productivity (both programs compete for Putin's attention).

The All-Russian People's Front, Titov and the experts involved by him decided to revive the concept of VPRM. With the help of classified data from the Federal Tax Service, they re-calculated the number of such jobs and their dynamics in the economy as a whole and by sector, follows from the report of Boris Titov for the meeting of the ONF Industrial Committee, which will be held on Thursday, June 29, in Moscow (RBC has a presentation) . The study was prepared by the ONF Industrial Committee with the involvement of experts, including the Growth Economics Institute. Stolypin.

The number of VPRMs is growing every year (see infographic), and not falling, as follows from the methodology of Rosstat. Both methods agree that there are 16-17 million VPRM in the Russian economy now, but the trend is set in fundamentally different ways. At the same time, in the study of the ONF, a steady increase in the number of IMs occurs against the background of a reduction in the total number of jobs in the country, and it was not prevented by a two-year recession (2015-2016). Why these trends might combine is not explained in the report. “The growth of the SMWP is an increase in the efficiency of employment, and it is most pronounced in manufacturing, while in trade, public administration, petrochemistry, fisheries and a number of other industries, the number of SMSM is falling. The figures that we see indicate a decrease in the efficiency of employment in general, ”Titov wrote RBC by e-mail.

Rise or fall?

Since 2011, the number of high-performance jobs, according to the ONF, has grown by almost a third and amounted to 16.6 million last year - 27% of the total number of jobs in Russia. Rosstat, on the other hand, estimates the number of VPRMs at the end of 2016 at 16 million. At Rosstat, the indicator has been declining since 2014, moving away from the goal of 25 million by 2020, which was set by Putin. But it also follows from the calculations of the ONF that, if the current economic policy is maintained, the figure of 25 million will not be reached even by 2025.

Rosstat and ONF define the concept of a highly productive workplace in different ways. Before the appearance of the May decrees, Rosstat did not count the number of VPRMs at all, and developed the necessary methodology only in 2013. But it was based not on the qualifications of employees and not on the quality of the goods or services they produce (although Putin asked that these be “highly productive and modern” positions), but on the average salary at the enterprise. In cases where it exceeds a certain threshold value established taking into account the industry, the size of the organization and the region, all jobs in the enterprise are automatically enrolled in "high-performance".

The methodology of the ONF and the Stolypin Institute also does not undertake to measure productivity for each workplace separately. But to the criterion of the cost of wages is added the profit generated for the enterprise by an average of one of its employees. Labor productivity at a particular enterprise is defined as the sum of two terms - the employee's wages (including insurance premiums from wages) and the gross profit of the enterprise per employee. For each industry, a target indicator of labor productivity has been calculated, equal to the industry-wide indicator increased by one and a half times (because the May decrees contain an instruction to increase labor productivity in the country by 1.5 times by 2018). If the enterprise's productivity exceeds the target, then all its employees are enrolled in the VPRM.

This methodology was prepared by Delovaya Rossiya, and the calculations were carried out by the Federal Tax Service (the department cannot transfer data due to tax secrecy), says Anastasia Alekhnovich, director of the Stolypin Institute and vice president of Delovaya Rossiya. “In the future, on the database of the Federal Tax Service, it is possible to create a full-fledged system of statistics in addition to the databases of Rosstat, as is done all over the world,” she adds. The press service of the Federal Tax Service confirmed to RBC that the agency calculated these indicators, they were based on the credentials of organizations and individual entrepreneurs, as well as information from their tax and accounting reports.

What to do with an inefficient public sector?

At the end of 2016, the leader in the number of VPRMs was manufacturing (4.3 million), transport and communications (2.2 million), trade and repair of vehicles (1.9 million). The least highly productive positions are in fishing (38,000), public administration (108,000) and education (281,000). Public administration also shows the worst dynamics among industries - over five years, the number of VPRMs in government has decreased by 40%, or 72 thousand units (see infographic).

in public administration and social sphere the number of VPRMs cannot be a key performance indicator, Titov notes. According to him, reducing the number of officials in order to increase efficiency is a “frontal” approach that does not work. Labor productivity indicators in public administration should be aimed at improving the quality of services provided, he emphasizes.

High-performance jobs are “not the main thing” in the economy, says director of the Center for Market Research high school Economics (HSE) Georgy Ostapkovich. “Everything depends on the methodology that officials will eventually make. I think that they will make the methodology that will correspond to the achievement of this indicator,” he says. It is necessary to proceed from the final results, and there are no technological breakthroughs in the domestic economy yet, adds Ostapkovich.

The problem is not even in the number of jobs, but in their distribution and structure, Titov notes. IMRPs should appear in the manufacturing, high-tech sectors and agriculture, and not in "bloated" trade and mining, he emphasizes. Another problem, according to him, is “the overconcentration of efficient industries in Moscow and St. Petersburg and low on the periphery”: “There are no modern jobs in the regions, wages are low, people are fleeing to the center, the polarization of space is growing. To stop this process, it is necessary to create VPRM in the regions, taking into account their specialization.”

The topic of productivity is one of the main ones when discussing measures to accelerate the growth of the Russian economy. According to the plans of the Stolypin Club of Boris Titov, they should be the exit of companies from the shadows, the development of small and medium-sized businesses and the restoration of the economy of “simple things” (all this should happen as a result of implementation, which will require an investment of 7.5 trillion rubles over five years) . If the Growth Strategy is fully implemented, the number of high-performance jobs will reach 25 million by 2020, and 35 million by 2035, Titov believes. Productivity should become the main driver of economic growth, according to Kudrin's CSR program. But the CSR is not focusing on VPRM - the experts' measures relate to the performance of "the entire system, not individual elements," says a spokesman for the center.

With the participation of: Anna Mogilevskaya

The forecast used two definitions of high-performance jobs (HWPWs) depending on the sector of the economy considered.

Labor productivity calculated as value added, created by the enterprise, per employee. All occupied workplaces of an enterprise whose labor productivity exceeds a certain level are considered to be related to high-performance jobs. This approach is in line with international methods for calculating labor productivity and directly reflects the contribution of high-performance jobs to the gross domestic product.

The value of the criterion VPRM for labor productivity was determined based on the average level of labor productivity of the six largest world economies (excluding Russia) - the USA, China, Japan, Germany, India, Brazil. Using 2005 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) in 2011 average level gross domestic product per job substituted in these countries amounted to 27 thousand US dollars. Under the main version of the forecast of the world economy by 2020, labor productivity in these countries will reach 37 thousand US dollars in 2011 prices (purchasing power parity). This means that, in accordance with these criteria, VPRM are located in enterprises that have in 2011 added value per one job substituted at the level of at least 612 thousand rubles, and by 2020 the figure increases to 830 thousand rubles in 2011 prices of the year.

The use of another criterion is proposed for the service sector (medicine, financial services, education, public administration, utilities), since the added value of this sector is formed on the basis of costs and does not always reflect the objective contribution of these types of activities to the development of the economy. For enterprises of these types of activity, the level of wages per employee was used as a criterion for the presence of PM. In these types of economic activities, the qualification of employees is the main factor of efficiency, and high wage will attract more qualified employees.

The value of the criterion of a highly productive workplace in terms of wages was established on the basis of the definition of the middle class given by specialists World Bank in the Global Economic Prospects 2007 report. The World Bank defines belonging to the global middle class of a person with an annual income of 4 to 17 thousand US dollars in 2000 prices at purchasing power parity, while maintaining this criterion until 2030. Given the hypothesis that there is one dependent for every working member of the household, the household is in the middle class with an income per worker of $8,000 to $34,000 per year in 2000 PPP prices. In Russian conditions, this corresponds to the average monthly income in 2011 of 20 - 84 thousand rubles per employee. In the forecast for the MTCT criterion in the service sector, the average value of this interval was used - 52 thousand rubles per month in 2011 prices - for the entire forecast period. The level of wages was used as the level of income per employed person. In this case, in 2020, the VPRM should provide a minimum wage of 80,000 rubles per month at current prices.

The basis for the increase in the GPRP is the scale of economic growth, which allows, in the forced scenario, to increase the number of GPRP by 8.4 million places by 2020 and achieve the target parameter. Under the conditions of conservative and innovative options, by 2020 21-22 million high-performance jobs will be achieved.

1. Introduction: change of doctrine. Much has changed in Russia over the past quarter century of economic reforms. One of the general lines of the ongoing reforms was deindustrialization Russian economy. Trying to build capitalist institutions and at the same time destroy the foundations of socialist management, the country's leadership actually let the economy take its course, which in the conditions of the transition period meant the destruction of many of its sectors and industries. The overall result of this course of events was qualitative degradation the Russian economy, the transformation of the country into a raw materials appendage of advanced states. Awareness by the leadership of the country of the dead end of the previous path of development of the state led to a revision of the previous policy. The first step on this path was the slogan of the ex-president of the country V.A. Medvedev about the need to build in Russia innovative economy. However, time has shown that this political setting turned out to be erroneous, orienting the country towards skipping the natural stages of technological development. The second and more balanced step was the new political slogan of Russian President V.V. Putin on the need to implement “ new industrialization» countries by creating 25 million high-tech jobs (HWPs). Such neo-industrial doctrine is less ambitious than innovation doctrine, but it seems more realistic and better reflects the actual needs of the country.

Now the process of implementing the neo-industrial doctrine is unfolding. However, even the first steps in this direction have shown that not everything is going smoothly here. Moreover, it is already clear that the neo-industrial doctrine suffers from serious methodological flaws. In this regard, a number of acute questions arise. For example, what is the meaning of the political leadership of the country in the concept of VRM? How realistic is the proposed doctrine? Does it correspond to global trends and Russia's internal capabilities? What are the pitfalls in the way of its implementation? This article provides answers to the questions posed.

2. The concept of a high-tech workplace. The modern economy must be based on the latest technological advances, which is tantamount to creating multiple BPMs. What is hidden under this term?

The analysis shows that there is no generally accepted strict definition of BPM. Thus, the general public and the administrative establishment use a concept that is not completely clear and definite.

Historically, the concept of VRM received a “political birth” from the speech of Russian President V. Putin, delivered by him on the day of his inauguration on May 7, 2012. In this keynote speech, the task was set to create 25 million jobs by 2020. Subsequently, on May 26, 2013, on the eve of Entrepreneur's Day, Vladimir Putin met with representatives of small and medium-sized businesses. main theme discussion was the task of creating 25 million jobs (hereinafter - Task-25). At the same meeting, he made an important comment on Target 25: “It is important that new jobs are high-tech. Where they appear, there is a so-called synergistic effect in all areas: in terms of efficiency, in terms of increasing labor productivity, in solving social problems, including the level of wages and improving working conditions. V. Putin also noted that the analysis of the modernized productions showed that at the enterprises of the so-called new economy the output per worker is almost 10 times higher than in the old, traditional enterprises, and the profit per worker is 8.6 times higher. The above comments look at the main characteristics of the BPM.

In his subsequent statements, V. Putin repeatedly clarified some parameters of the VRM. For example, in his campaign op-ed, he gave what later became a classic characterization of WRM: “So the creation of 25 million new, high-tech, well paid jobs for people with high level education is not a pretty phrase.” Somewhat later, another characteristic of the VRM became popular in the press: according to the estimates of the Russian Ministry of Economic Development, the creation of one modernized workplace costs about 100-300 thousand dollars.

Another implicit characteristic of the VRM was voiced by B. Titov in his article, in which he pointed out the fact that the business organization "Business Russia" put forward the idea of ​​creating by 2025 in the competitive sector of the Russian economy 25 million new modern VRMs with a productivity not exceeding less than 3 million rubles in year . This is a significant refinement of the BPM technological parameter. To better understand the scale of the technological breakthrough that is required when switching to BPM, let's compare their productivity with the national average. Thus, according to Rosstat, the number of employed in the country in 2012 reached 71.5 million people, and the GDP amounted to 62.6 billion rubles. This means that the average labor productivity in Russia this year was 875.5 thousand rubles. Therefore, the productivity of the VRM should be almost 3.5 times higher than the national average.

Thus, the concept of BPM as such is absent in the scientific and business literature. Meanwhile, this concept is not so complex that it needs special academic definitions; specialists are well aware of the essence of this concept. In general, the concept of VRM is a kind of political stamp that arose during the pre-election presidential race, when V. Putin's team formed new political slogans and slogans. Over the past time, active debates around Task-25 have led to the fact that the concept of CRM has been “overgrown” with the necessary characteristics, which make it possible to quite accurately verify the CRM phenomenon itself. We summarize its main properties.

BPM is a workplace for which the following facts take place:

1. equipped with the most modern technological equipment based on the latest achievements of science and technology;

2. high economic efficiency production (labor productivity should, as a rule, be several times higher than that of traditional industries; for example, 3.5 times higher than the average labor productivity in the country);

3. good working conditions that meet the most stringent modern standards;

4. good education and high qualification workers employed at this workplace;

5. high wage workers employed at this workplace (many times higher than that of workers in traditional industries);

6. high creation cost new job or modernization old workplace (at least 100 thousand dollars).

It follows from the foregoing that the process of reproduction of HRM (HRRM), which is not explicitly discussed in the literature as such, involves three key points:

1. Creation new VRM(including through the modernization of old ones);

2. Preparation qualified personnel for new VRMs;

3. Creation of favorable institutional conditions to invest in new BPM.

3. Realistic Target-25: international benchmarks. The Task-25 set by the expert community of the country was subjected to multilateral criticism. However, first of all, it needs to be understood from the point of view of similar processes taking place in other countries of the world. Thus, calculations show that the indicated mass of WPM corresponds to 35% of all employed in the Russian economy, i.e. more than a third of all working people. How realistic is it to carry out such a large-scale and rapid modernization?

The study of modern world experience shows that many states are concentrating their efforts on the advanced creation of new jobs and are developing appropriate plans for this. For example, India in terms of creating new jobs overtook other BRIC countries: in the period from 2000 to 2005. it introduced 11.3 million new jobs annually, concentrating their support in the most productive and technologically advanced sectors for the country: in the IT sector, automotive, pharmaceuticals and medical research, transport and engineering. In the next 20 years, 200 million jobs should be created in India.

In China, faster job creation is also a subject public policy. Creating 24-25 million new jobs is a priority for the Chinese government in 2011-2015. Over the past 4 years, 55 million migrant workers have been created in the cities of the country, 45 million migrant workers from rural areas have been employed.

As for Brazil, it annually creates 2.7 million new jobs by developing high-tech and productive economic activities: aircraft manufacturing, automotive, energy, pharmacology, international tourism, modern agro- and biotechnologies. Over the past 8 years, Brazil has managed to create 15 million new jobs, thereby expanding its domestic market.

On the basis of the given data, it is possible to compile Table 1, from which important conclusions follow. First of all, the calculations show that the estimated intensity of BPM renewal in Russia exceeds even the loudest successes of the BRIC countries. Moreover, it can be seen from the given data that the annual volume of VRMs introduced, as a rule, does not exceed 1% of the country's population. Only in Brazil Lately a higher figure was recorded, but for many years this pace is likely not to last. In this sense, Russian plans exceed the recorded successes of China by 2.4 times, India and Brazil - by 2.2 times. Such a multiple excess of the already fantastic success of the BRIC countries seems clearly excessive for the Russian economy. Hardly real sector the Russian economy will be able to provide such a flow of new jobs being introduced; otherwise, the domestic economy will operate in the “technological overvoltage” mode for many years. It does not follow from what has been said that the adopted "New Industrialization" plan is wrong or harmful; most likely, it simply will not be implemented in full, and we need to be prepared for this right now.

Table 1. Characteristics of GPM reproduction by BRIC countries.

Countries	Population, million people (2011)	Average annual number of created VRMs, mln. places (% of country's population)
		Fact	Plan
Russia	143	–	3,2 (2,2)
India	1193	11,3 (0,9)	10,0 (0,8)
China	1344	13,8 (1,0)	5,0 (0,4)
Brazil	194	1,8 (0,9)	2,7 (1,4)

Thus, it can be stated that the general direction laid down in Task-25 is correctly defined, but the pace of the planned transformations is clearly overestimated.

4. Promising high-tech professions: the situation in the capital's labor market. The process of VRM reproduction involves the advance training of specialists of the appropriate profile and quality. At the same time, it is assumed by default that such specialists should be in high demand and receive higher salaries. Considering that Target-25 was published in 2012, it is quite logical to assume that the labor market should already respond to the interest warmed up by the government in CPM and high-tech professions. How is the situation in reality and what can be expected in this area in the future?

To answer these questions, let's turn to the data of the Head Hunter recruiting company, which accumulates information about supply and demand in the labor market using the website. In addition to mass professions, Head Hunter monitors the market for highly qualified specialists, including high-tech professions (HTP). The company's data for the first half of 2013, including 103.6 thousand questionnaires from entrepreneurs and potential employees, make it possible to establish some features of the current state of the HTP market. For greater clarity, we will present the data of the Head Hunter company in Table 2, which contains statistics on the Moscow market (the first half of 2013). The key information here is the earnings of specialists, taking into account their experience with high-tech equipment (HTO).

A number of important conclusions follow from Table 2.

Table 2. Characteristics of the labor market for high-tech professions (Moscow, 2013).

Specialties	Labor market index (Δ)	Average monthly salary, thousand rubles		Salary relative to the average in Moscow,%	Experience bonus, %
		no experience with the WTO	with WTO experience
Mechanic	–0,820	55	69	101,8	25,4
	–0,931	62	67	114,8	8,1
Engineer	–0,617	93	113	172,2	21,5
Process Engineer	–0,102	103	120	190,7	16,5
medical researchers	–1,485	51	65	94,4	27,4
	–1,267	86	95	159,2	10,4
Working WTO	–1,825	–	52	96,2	–

Firstly, the capital's HTP market is in a state of relative deficit. To clarify the situation, you should use the methodology of the Head Hunter company, based on the use of its “branded” hh-index: hh = E / D, where E and D are supply (employee resumes) and demand (employer vacancies) in the labor market. The company's experience shows that the "normal" or "natural" value of the hh-index is hh*=3–4; In this case, there is an equilibrium in the labor market. Thus, if hh the presence of a relatively acute need of the capital's economy in high-tech personnel and readiness to "receive" them.

Secondly, today's earnings of VTP employees do not meet the existing market guidelines and standards. Earlier we noted that new VRMs should have a capacity of at least 3 million rubles. in year. This means that the productivity of the BPM should be almost 3.5 times higher than the national average. And if this is the case with productivity, then there should be approximately the same proportion with wages, i.e. representatives of the VTP should have a salary approximately 3.5 times higher than the average for the country or region. Since, as of September 2013, the average salary in Moscow was 54,000 rubles, it is easy to recalculate the relative salary of representatives of the HTP (fifth column of Table 2). As it turns out, none of the professions meets the 3.5-fold excess rate. Only for process engineers does this excess approach 2; other professions are far from clear leadership in terms of income. Moreover, medical researchers and WTO workers do not even reach the average level of wages in Moscow. This means that the labor market does not yet perceive the signals coming from the government in relation to BPM and underestimates the human capital of high-tech personnel. Thus, the prevailing price picture in the labor market of the metropolitan metropolis has a destimulating effect on the reproduction of high-tech personnel. Later revealed fact underpayments of the HTP will seriously slow down the solution of Task-25.

Thirdly, the presence of experience in working with the WTO is taken into account by the metropolitan labor market extremely poorly. The data in Table 2 show that the presence similar experience allows you to increase the initial salary by 8-25%, which is clearly not enough to adequately remunerate experienced professionals. As a rule, experienced workers can receive a salary that is a multiple of that of employees who do not have the relevant experience. However the Moscow labor market underestimates the positive experience of working with the WTO. Thus, the specificity of the capital's labor market consists in the "double underestimation" of high-tech personnel - their initial training and their subsequent experience. With the current relative shortage of HTP representatives, such a “double underestimation” in the future will greatly slow down the process of reproducing qualified personnel.

So, the Moscow market of high-tech personnel is in a contradictory and somewhat paradoxical state. On the one hand, it is characterized by a shortage of HTP personnel, on the other hand, these personnel do not receive adequate remuneration. To better understand the magnitude of the market imbalance, let's compare the annual cost of a high-tech workforce (Z) with the cost of BPM (X). To do this, we consider two scenarios: the first is the minimum cost of BPM (X=100 thousand dollars); the second is the realistic cost of BPM (X=300 thousand dollars). The calculation results are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. The ratio of wages of high-tech professions and the cost of HRM (Moscow, 2013).

Specialties	Annual salary (Z), thousand dollars	X/Z ratio, years
		X=100 thousand dollars	X=300 thousand dollars
Mechanic	25,1	3,9	11,9
Equipment repair/adjustment engineer	24,3	4,1	12,3
Engineer	41,1	2,4	7,3
Process Engineer	43,6	2,3	6,8
medical researchers	23,6	4,2	12,6
Programmers and software developers	34,5	2,8	8,6
Working WTO	18,9	5,2	15,8

The figures obtained show that the capital's economy is not ready for serious modernization. Expensive BPM requires careful and skilled service from workers, the cost of which must be comparable to the cost of BPM. Otherwise, the situation when a "cheap" worker is involved in "expensive" and complex equipment is fraught with an inadequate attitude of this worker to his workplace. For example, a damaged and disabled expensive VRM due to insufficient employee interest in it causes serious financial damage to the company, which, in fact, determines the principle of matching wages and the cost of the workplace. According to our expert assessment, a normal X/Z ratio should not exceed 3-4 years. Table 3 shows that when current prices in the capital labor market the metropolis is ready to introduce only the cheapest VRMs. It can be said that Moscow's economy is on the bottom edge of the GRM; more expensive equipment requires higher wages, for which the metropolitan labor market is not yet ready. The development scenario, in which the cost of HRM is an order of magnitude higher than the annual salary of specialists, seems unpromising; to realize such a scenario, most likely, simply will not succeed. The specified circumstance in the next few years will slow down the process of introducing the best samples of VRM, thereby holding back the growth of labor productivity in the Russian capital.

In general, it can be stated that in Moscow there is a syndrome of increased “squeezing” of employers in relation to the earnings of representatives of the VTP. Apparently, the interests of the country and, in particular, the city, in terms of updating the production base, come to serious controversy with the interests of entrepreneurs who are interested in obtaining super profits from this process due to underpayment for the services of high-tech workers.

5. Conclusion: the result will be, but more modest. The considered neo-industrial doctrine of creating 25 million high-tech jobs in the Russian economy is largely contradictory. On the one hand, the need for such a political attitude is long overdue and is timely and in demand. On the other hand, it bears the features of obvious populism and an outright political cliché. This is manifested in the weak elaboration of the doctrine in terms of the tools and timing of its implementation. The performed calculations show that by 2020 it will most likely not be possible to create the planned mass of high-tech jobs in the Russian economy; the pace of industrial reform by the country's leadership was clearly overestimated. It seems that when determining the intended threshold value, the desired was presented as the actual one.

In addition, the place of small and medium-sized businesses in the planned neo-industrial doctrine is not completely clear. Large-scale technological shifts are implemented, as a rule, by large corporations, while small and medium-sized enterprises work mainly on their side. In this regard, it is not entirely clear who will be main operator the planned rearmament of the Russian economy. Nevertheless, the “vertical of power” built in the country with increasing personal responsibility is already yielding certain results today. It is possible that the constant pressure from the top leadership of the country, supplemented by "manual control", will nevertheless allow moving from the dead center in which Russia has found itself. In the future, this can serve as a source of new technological advances.