to be here at such wonderful workshop. So I will talk about some supersymmetrical solution and how to reproduce their free energy via supersymmetrical localization. I want to apologize in advance to some people who are present at the Michigan workshop because I'm giving a seminar as the one I gave before. But since we left some loose ends, I hope that comments and questions and remarks from the audience might help maybe tying up this loose ends. So OK, and it's based on a work with Brian Willett. So let me start with some basic remarks that now will be very trivial. So of course during this week, we have heard a lot of talks, we show a lot of progress, which happened in the recent years. In particular, there have been a lot of progress in computing exact quantities in the field theory exactly via supersymmetrical localization. And one of the examples is the computation of partition function of three-dimensional super conformal theories. In parallel, there have been a lot of success also in the construction and in the classification of supergravity solutions with asymptotics, which is anti-resistor spacetime. In particular, among all the others, I will mention the solutions of black hole solutions of 4D and equals to gauge supergravity that Dietmar Klem was talking about. So and these two joint efforts on the field theory and on the gravity side found many nice holographic checks. And one of which I was mentioning before is that the entropy of anti-sitter black holes from equals to gauge supergravity was, indeed, reproduced by a computation in the dual field theory. And this was achieved by Beninic-Rissen-Zafaroni in 2015. A bit of an overview of these solutions because they will be useful for what will follow. So the solutions on which the micro-seed counting was performed were initially on the one that was found by Kachaturian Klem in 2009. So this corresponds to a static 1 quarter DPS black hole solutions found in theories of Iliopoulos gauge supergravity. And indeed, these theories of Iliopoulos gauge supergravity come from a theory. And all the solutions can be embedded in theory on S7. And it will have field theory duals in the class of a BJM. In particular, the one on S7 will have a BGM as a dual field theory. So these extremal black holes are flows from anti-sitter 4, a synthetic region, to an ADS2 cross sigma G near horizon geometry. And moreover, they are supported by magnetic charges and scalar field. And in particular, the presence of magnetic charge allows us to realize the topological twist, meaning these black holes can preserve some supersymmetry due to the fact that some components of the spin connection are exactly canceled by the magnetic components of the gauge fields. So these black holes here, they have finite entropy. And indeed, this macroscopic entropy was reproduced by the computation of the ABGM partition function on S1 times sigma G, with one unit magnetic flux on sigma G. So this partition function can be computed via localization. And in the large end limit, the partition function assumes this form. And it reproduces the black hole entropy upon some suitable extremization on the fugacities. And the extremization finds its own counterpart also in the supergravity. And indeed, it nicely corresponds to a tractor mechanism in the supergravity theory. So this discovery led to many, many developments, as we all know. And as they were reviewed in talks, for example, the talk of Kirill Christov and so on. So we would like to build upon this result. I would like to generalize it in a different way. So in particular, the partition function that was used for the microstate counting was the one on S1 times sigma G. However, some recent results extended this computation of the partition function to a more general class of three-dimensional manifold. So in particular, the work of these three authors, which are in the audience as well, which are in the audience, generalize the computation of N equals 2 supercoferon chair signals theories, their free energy, to a more general case in which the three-dimensional manifold is an S1 vibration over a two-dimensional surface sigma G. And so this is the schematic form of what is symmetric on this manifold. And in particular, this setup is particularly useful for connecting many different objects, which apparently they are disconnected. So in particular, the partition function, in the case of zero-fibration, reduces to the one which was indeed recovered by Benigni Zaffaroni and that mixed contact with blackboard physics because it is relevant for the microstate counting. However, if we take G equals zero and the chair number of the vibration one, we reproduce indeed the S3 manifold. And in particular, the computation gives the S3 partition function, which is a quantity in the dual field theory, which is extensively studied, which satisfies monotonicity theorems and so on and so forth. So this framework is particularly useful to make contact between these two different realms. And we would like to, and therefore, we were motivated into studying the larger limit of the partition function on these manifolds and moreover provide some holographic check with some bulk-tool solution. So the bulk-tool solution that I will talk about and that I will focus during my seminar are solutions of Euclidean supergravity, whose boundary is indeed an MGP manifold, which is an S1P bundle over a two-dimensional remelsofracid machine. So the outline of my talk is that indeed, I will focus on these solutions, on the construction of the explicit supersymmetric solution, whose boundary is this MGP manifold. So I will explain which different classes would be a solution and can be and how to make them satisfy some regularity conditions. Moreover, I will explain how to compute the gravity on shell action. And then I will also explain how the matching works with, in the case of BGM. And I will further comment on particular subtleties that arise when multiple fillings for the same boundary data are possible. Okay, let me start then with the setup. So we chose to work in a minimal framework, in an easy framework, which is indeed minimal 4D Euclidean gauge supergravity. So we are only considering the gravity multiplets. So we don't consider any vector multiplets or hypermultipleets. So the Bosonic action is the purely Einstein-Maxwell-Lamda theory, which has this form here. And indeed we were gonna find the BPS solutions, in this solution which preserves some of the supersymmetries. And for this solution here, the BPS equation should be satisfied. So the BPS equations are obtained by setting to zero the supersymmetry variation of the gravity norm. And any solution that we will find by this equation of motion can be uplifted locally to a solution on a Sasaki-Eston-7 on 11-dimensional supergravity. However, there exists some subtleties for what concerns the global uplift that I will mention later in the seminar. So indeed the fact that we would like to have solutions which asymptotically present a boundary, which is of a form MgP, so which is of the form of a S1 vibration over a Riemann surface, tells us that we need a parameter responsible for this non-trivial vibration. And this parameter that we will introduce will be the nut charge. So the Chamberlain and collaborators find the general set of solution to the equation of motion of the Lagrangian that I showed you before. And in particular these solutions are supported also by gauge fields. So in particular they will be determined by five parameters. So parameter that corresponds to the mass, the electric charge, the magnetic charge. So this is the curvature of the spatial two sections which are here and finally S which is the nut charge. So the metric is of this form here and the warp factor is also depicted here. So these are the spatial two sections which assume three different forms depending on the curvature of the spatial two section which is a discrete parameters which is fixed to one, zero or minus one. So since we want a compact manifold we will also appropriately take in the quotient of R2 and H2 in order to obtain a higher genus remount surface. So the last part is that, okay, so this configuration will also be supported by gauge field which has this form here and also this form here depending on the value of the curvature. And indeed for this solution, the boundary which is located at R goes to infinity is indeed a circle bundle over a constant curvature remount surface. So indeed we find it here. So this is the part which is relevant that will be the boundary of our solution. And indeed we see that in a particular choice for which P equals one and G equals zero we can impose the periodicity delta psi equal four pi and the boundary is indeed a squash test tree with squash in parameter which is equal to four for a squared. We will moreover impose a different periodicity for the coordinate psi and we will have more general length spaces. It will be more general in general by axially squashed length spaces and more general P bundles over remount surfaces. So this is the general set of solutions which solve the equation of motion. Of course we will need then to impose some regularity of the solution. So we don't want any singular solution and for this case we will have two classes of solution. That depends on the dimension of the fixed point for the killing vector deep psi. So deep psi was the coordinate, oh sorry, deep psi was the coordinate appearing here where we redefined the first coordinate that we defined as delta tau and d tau. So indeed we have two different classes of solutions. So the first solution is the nut charge, is the nut solution. Actually the first term is like ADS tau nut and was found first by tau and Newman, Winti and Tamburino, that's why the acronym. So for this solution we have an isolated fixed point of the killing vector deep psi. The second case is instead the second class of solution will pertain to the bolt, bolt class of solution, so ADS tau bolt but abbreviated in bolt. And this solution here has a two dimensional fixed point for the killing vector. So these two solutions are very different for what concerns their topology and the conditions in order for the solutions to be regular, they're also different. So in particular for the nut solution, the nut solution has topology of R4 and in order to have this, the warp factor that I showed you before that appears in the metric needs to have a double root at this, exactly at this point here. And indeed this point here is also identified with the origin of R4. So in order to have a regular solution then we need to impose the delta psi equals four pi and we can allow mildly singular or before singularity by imposing this pericity here. And for the nut solution, the boundary which has our fourth topology, the boundary is indeed a squashed three sphere. The bolt instead, given the fact that it has two dimensional fixed point for this kill vector here, the topology is very different. So indeed the topology for the bolt is a disc fibred on an S2, in the case I'm restricting for the moment to spherical bolts and nuts. So the bolt has this different topology and for the bolt in order to be regular, the work factor needs to have a simple root at a value which is bigger than the value of the nut chart parameter S. Moreover, we need to impose the regularity condition of the bolt requires this particular relation between the derivative of the work factor and the churn number of the vibration. And this gives the fact that the pericity of the angular coordinate is four pi over P. So the boundary in the case of a spherical bolt is a squashed length space. So far, I just dealt with configurations which have an S2 dimensional part of the metric. But of course, spherical bolts can also be generalized into solutions where you have a higher genus reman surface as the base of your vibration. So indeed, spherical bolts can be generalized to sigma G. And in particular, there exists toroidal and higher genus bolt solution. And these are also topology of a disc fibered over a two dimensional reman surface. And they satisfy these two different, these different periodicity condition for the angular coordinate for genus greater than one and for genus equal one. There exists no higher genus and toroidal nut solution. This was also found by Chamberlain collaborators. So indeed, this is more like a zoo of what can happen, how all the various solution that can arise. And indeed, one, in order for these solutions to be regular, one is to impose this condition, in particular, the fact that it has a double root and is constrained here in order for the metric to cap off smoothly inside the bulk. So imposing regularity and moreover, if we impose also the fact that the solution will preserve some supersymmetry. In general, restricts the number of parameters in our game and in particular, there will be constraints between Q, M and P and in particular, all of them will depend on only on the squashing parameter. Moreover, the solutions can also might exist for a certain range of squashing or squashing parameter. So they will not extend for all values of squashing. So let's move on to the discussion of the BPS equations. So as I was mentioning before, so we are looking for supersymmetric solutions and both nuts and bolts can be supersymmetric. Of course, we need to tune the parameters but a bit of literature. So we are dealing now with the solutions of Euclidean Minimum Supergravity. However, Blackwell solutions will not charge and meaning Lorentzian solutions will not charge. We've studied much before and in particular, there was a similar paper by Thomas Ortin and collaborators in 1999 which studied the supersymmetric properties of Lorentzian solutions. And also more recently, this was also studied by Dietmar Klem and Masato Nozawa. However, we are interested in Euclidean solutions and the Euclidean solutions were studied like in the class of the Taub Nutt, Taub Nutt EDS and Taub Bolt, were analyzed in a paper by Dario Martelli, Achilles Spaces and James Parks. And these are the paper from which we will take all the conventions. So we'll mostly follow this paper here. We would like to generalize their description of the Nutt and the Bolt to higher genus and Bolt solutions in order to have the full family of MGP boundaries. So indeed, all these people study the supersymmetric properties and they find out that both in Lorentzian and in Euclidean, there are some classes that can either preserve one hull for one quarter of the supersymmetries. In particular, depending on the two different for the spherical nuts and bolts, the one half BBS solution has this constraint between parameters and the one quarter one has slightly different or slightly different constraints. Since we want to generalize our computation from the one quarter BBS black holes, we will focus then on the one quarter BBS solution in analogy with the one quarter BBS black holes and we will then impose regularity. So the end goal will be to look for a family, to construct a family of one quarter BBS solutions and compute the actual action and compare with the BGM free energy which has computed the localization for this class of manifolds. So indeed, we can take the results from Ortin and collaborators and from Dieter Merklem and Masato Nozawa in order to, which were found in Lorentzian signature, we can perform a weak rotation and we can get the parameters, actually the constraints between the parameters such that these solutions satisfied the interability condition. However, in order to be sure that these solutions are actually supersymmetric, we also constructed the full Keeling-Spiner. So we solved the Keeling-Spiner equations, which is this one. We find the Keeling-Spiner of our solution and we find out that the Keeling-Spiner has only two out of eight components. So it's indeed one quarter BBS solution. Moreover, the Keeling-Spiner just depends on the radial coordinate, which is indeed good. So then we can, it doesn't really depend on the angular coordinates. So then we can indeed compactify appropriately the hyperbolic space or the two-dimensional plane into a higher genus, higher genus from the surfaces. Let me see. I'm not really sure that it's normalizable because if you see these two functions here, they really depend on R square root of R at infinity. So these are the two classes. So these are the constraints among the parameters that needs to be satisfied in order for the solution to preserve one quarter of supersymmetries. And so we need to then satisfy regularity, which for the nut for the bolt correspond to two different set of constraints. So in particular, the nut solutions will be obtained by imposing a double root at R equals S. And this gives a constraint such that the electric charge and the magnetic charges are exactly equal. So this solution is self-dual. And for the bolt solution, we need to impose the regularity condition that I showed you before, and this constrains the value of the Q parameter appearing in the solution. So we will obtain up to four different branches of bolt solution that we collectively denote by bolt plus and bolt minus, because two of them will, pairwise, two of them will give the same free energy. So we call that we denote two by bolt plus and two by bolt minus. So indeed, regularity imposes some constraints on the range of parameter, and I will show you later also in the graph. So the nut solution exists for every value of the squashing. And in particular, for the squashing which is equal to one half, we obtain a boundary which is around sphere and the solution itself reduces to Euclidean ADS-4. However, the bolt solution exists only for a finite range of S for these two value of P. We remind you that the bolt solution have a squashing space as boundary, or indeed an MGP manifold for a higher-genius surface. So bolt solutions are indeed present for all parameters, for all range of parameter S for P greater than three. And we'll come back to this point later on. Moreover, the bolt solution need also to satisfy another constraint. So indeed, the bolt has a non-trivial two-cycle inside the bulk, and this two-cycle is traded by flux. So we can compute the flux of the bolt which turns out to have this expression here. And it will be interesting in uplifting these solutions to M-tiering, to 11 dimensions. And the fact that we have a non-trivial flux to the bolt will give some constraints on the geometry of the internal manifold or internal Sasaki instant seven on which we uplift. And in particular, chosen specific Sasaki instant manifold, we have that the flux through the bolt two-cycle needs to be quantized in this way. So this is the condition that needs to be satisfied for the flux of the bolt. And in particular, if we want to uplift our supergravity solution on an S7, the condition needs to be satisfied as this one. So there is this condition between P, which is the true number of the vibration and the genus of the sigma G. So this is the condition for which we have bolt solution which uplift on S7 to 11 dimensional, to 11 dimensional supergravity. And we'll keep this into account also because we will retrieve this exact condition on the dual field theory, which is a nice consistency condition. OK, after I have showed you all the possible ranges and all the possible types of supersemitic solution, we are ready now to compute the on-shell action because this will give a prediction for the result in the dual field theory. So we can evaluate the bulk supergravity action. So of course, as we know, if we plug in the solution directly inside the action, we incur into divergences. And in particular, we need to regularize the action with the introduction of a cutoff. And we need to add boundary terms, which are prescribed by holographic normalization. So once we add these counter terms, then once we remove the cutoff, the action remains finite. And in particular, there is a prescription which is well known for which terms to add for the counter terms from holographic normalization, which are exactly this one. So they are made out of curvature of the boundary. So this is the Ritchie scalar of the boundary, and this is the extrinsic curvature. Moreover, we have to take into account that the integration, so the integration of our action, needs to be performed from R, which is the cutoff, R infinity, and where the coordinate where the manifold closes off. So in particular, for the nut solution, the manifold close off at R0 equals S. And for the bulk solution, instead, it closes at this coordinate, which is Rb, which is strictly greater than S. So we can evaluate all these integrals quite easily. So we have that the gravity part gives this, the part for which the gauge field is responsible is this one. And the boundary counter term has this contribution here. The really remarkable part is that if you see, they have really not so trivial dependence on all the various parameters, and in particular, in the parameter S. But if you, by performing a computation, then you see that they all sum up to very simple expression. And all these expressions, in particular, they are independent on the squash in parameter S. And for the nut, we get this simple result here. And for the bolt, for the two classes of bolt solution, we have exactly this formula here. So they're very compact, and they don't depend on the squash in parameter. Moreover, let me mention that the genus zero case was already computed by Martelli, Paseus, and Sparks. So what we have, we have a generalization with higher genus for our bolt solutions. There is a prediction for our filter result. Of course, one can also take into consideration more, let's say, less regular geometries. In particular, we can consider this mildly singular orbit fold of the top nut. And add this unit of magnetic flux, which are exactly the same unit of magnetic flux as the corresponding bolt. So then this solution here, the same boundary data as the bolt solution. However, the on shell action for this configuration, which is also mildly singular, is higher with respect to the bolt solution. So we expect that it will never appear in our ensemble. So we can then plot then for the various values of G and P, we can then provide these plots in which we can compare the range of existence of the various solutions and the value of the free energy. And in particular, some of the solutions, as we see, we have to satisfy these constraints for the bolt solution to be actually regular solution. So we have that the radius at which the manifold cups off should be greater than the squash in parameter. We have that this particular function that I showed you before needs to be greater than 0 because it appears under the square root. So as soon as this one goes negative, the bolt solution ceases to exist as a real well-behave solution. And moreover, we need to take exactly the branch of solution which are relevant for the bolt plus and respectively for the bolt minus. So indeed, we performed all these checks on the plots and the plots are this one, which I showed in the picture. For instance, this is the bolt and the nut solution for G equals 0 and P equals 2. So we see that in this case, the flux of this solution here is just 0 for the bolt plus because this will be exactly 2, 2 minus 1. So the free energy of the bolt with P equals 2 exactly equal to the free energy of the nut mod set 2. So this is the only case in which the two configuration actually have the same free energy. For the other cases, instead they differ and the bolt plus is always the dominant one with respect to all the others. And so on and so forth, also for configuration with higher genus. We plotted all these configurations. So in order to recap now, we can see that, okay, we have given a prediction for the matching of the dual field theory. So indeed, we have provided some configurations on gravity, which are super symmetric and which uplift regularly on S7 to 11 dimensions. So they will have a field theory dual, which is a BJM. And in particular, we will have a configuration with P equals 1 and G equals 0. So with a boundary, which is an S3, which actually is a squashed S3, which has this value here. And we'll have also bolt solution, which satisfy however the other condition that I showed you before, which is necessary for the uplift, which is this one, whose free energy depends on, of course, on the genus and on the chair number of the vibration. Notice that for this case of the uplift on the S7, if we plug in these two values in this condition here, this condition is not satisfied. So therefore, we cannot, when there is a nut, there is no bolt and vice versa. So the nut is always present only present for these two values. And for these two values, there is no corresponding bolt.  This will have some importance for what concerns the matching with a dual field theory. Okay, this is our prediction from the gravity side. So we can now compare it with the known results and new results from the dual field theory. So in particular, we know that, so there was a paper by Hama, Hosomichi, and Lee where they have found, they have put any plus two which are Simons theories on the squash test tree. And in particular, they find that one family of deformation were found to be independent of the squash parameter and which is the one that happens, which is the case that also happens in our computation. And moreover, the partition function of a BGM theory on S3 was computed by these gentlemen here. And it gives exactly this value, which at the conformal point coincide indeed with the nut solution. And this was already also found by Martellian collaborators. So when the case, when the boundary is a squash test tree, we have that exactly the free energy for the nut solution is reproduced by the field theory computation on S3. So this is already known. What we wanna do, what we wanna do at this point is to fill the missing piece, and meaning that we would like to reproduce the free energy of the bolt solutions. And indeed, in order to do so, we can use the recent results. So in particular, these authors studied the partition function of N equals two theories on MGP. And in particular, as you can see from Brian's talk, the partition function as the sum, or as the form of the sum over beta vacua, which are this one where the fiber operator, the handle-gluing operator and the flux operator appear. In the large and limit, the formula for the partition function has a leading contribution, which comes from the extremist super potential. So it assumes this form. And in particular, if we plug in the formula for the extremist super potential, we get exactly, we get this expression here, which is subject to these constraints. The following constraints on the fugacities, on the fluxes and on the, and these are the fractional parts of the fugacities. So this is the function that we would like that is relevant for us. So in particular, we would like to reproduce the usual action of the bolts from this one. So in order to make contact with the solutions of minimal super gravity that we have found before, we need to specify some constraints between parameters. So in particular, in the setting of minimal gauge super gravity, we have constant scalars and the fluxes are all equal to each other. And this is reflected, and we can translate these constraints in constraints for the fugacities and for the fluxes in the dual field theory. And this exactly gives the fact that we can translate these constraints in the fact that the fractional part of the fugacities and also these gauge invariant combinations here are all independent of I. Indeed, because the gravity setup is such that all the fluxes are equal. And these conditions here, supplemented by this constraint, give exactly the constraint that we get before for the uplift of the bolt. Actually, it reproduces both bolts. Here, I just showed one, but both of them are reproduced. So the uplift condition for the bolt is exactly reproduced by setting all the fluxes and fugacities in independent of I, which is a nice check. Moreover, if we plug in the values for the fractional part of the fugacities, which in our case, it's equal to one quarter, we get exactly the matching, meaning that with the partition function computed at large and limit on MGP, it exactly coincides with the on-shell action, with the normalize on-shell action for the bolt solutions that we have found before. And moreover, one of the consistency check on the solution is that for P equals zero, so for when the chair number for the vibration is zero, this formula here reproduces indeed the entropy of minimal supergravity black holes, which have a higher genus horizon, which were found by these people. So it looks like we have found the consistency. So we see that for K equals one, a BGM theory, the bolt free energy supergravity matches the large n localization result, provided that this formula holds. And moreover, when the S3 boundary needs to be treated separately because P equals one and G equals zero doesn't really satisfy this formula here. So for the S3 partition function, we need to compute it separately. And in particular, it was computed before and we find that the free energy on S3 is exactly equal to the free energy of the nut configuration. So for this, so everything is good so far, so we claim victory because it's a nice check. However, we know we have one curiosity. So in particular, if we discard this condition for the moment, we also know that there exists solutions, there is both solutions with P equals one and for zero genus. So these solutions here will also fill the S3. So there are continuous and regular solutions because boundary is a bi-accelerate-scorched S3 as it is the nut solution. However, their value for the free energy is different. So in particular, if we plug it into the formula that we found on the supergravity side, we have that the two branches of bolt solutions for P equals one, they are exactly three quarters and five quarters with respect to the value of the free energy of the nut solution. So in particular, if we plot it into this plot where this is the squashing parameter and on the y-axis we have the value of the free energy, we have that this is the free energy of the nut solution which at S equals one-half coincides with the Euclidean ADS4 space. The bolt plus solution have actually lower free energy with respect to Euclidean ADS space, which is very weird. And the bolt plus solution instead has slightly higher free energy with respect to the nut solution. So this is a bit of a puzzle because indeed we will have a configuration, namely the bolt plus, which is the one that we have indicated with a blue color, which is present just for a short interval of squashing, which is here and it's not present for the round sphere. And however, the free energy for the bolt plus configuration is lower than the one of the nut, which indeed coincides also with the free energy of Euclidean ADS4. So why not trying to reproduce this on the field theory side? It's something very weird. So we wanted to try to see if we can get it from the field theory side from a computation via localization. So we need to check whether the bolt with P equals one uplift to M theory and on which particular Sasaki Einstein we need. So in particular, both bolt solution, bolt plus and bolt minus, with P equals one uplift on this manifold, which is M32. However, the dual field theory to this Sasaki Einstein reduction is a chirac quiver. So the computation of the free energy in the dual field theory is not currently under control. However, we have found another case, in particular the reduction on M theory on the V52 manifold in which the uplift condition is this one. And in particular, we see that the P equals one bolt minus uplift. Because if we see here, we can choose the minus sign. So it's gonna be minus one, minus two, equals zero more three. This works. So for this sort of reduction, for this sort of setup, we have that the bolt minus uplift, which has a free energy, which is five quarter the ones of ADS, Euclidean ADS4. So in particular, we managed to get this configuration here. So for the reduction on V52, the configuration with higher free energy is also a valid feeling of the S3, of the squashed S3, as it is valid as the nut solution. So the free energy for the field theory dual to V52 on S3 was computed before in 2008. And indeed it coincides with the nut, with the nut solution. So with this line here. However, if we compute the free energy with our new method, which involves computing the partition function MGP set in G equals zero and P equals one, we get that the result for our partition function reproduces the bolt minus result. So indeed our results seem to yield the sub leading subtle points. So we meant we, in this case for the V52, for the reduction on V52, it looks like we have two different feelings, two different bulk feelings for the same boundary data, which is the S3. And however, we managed to reproduce both of them via two different methods in localization. So we find a bit puzzling. So if you have any observation about that, I think that would be a nice thing to discuss. So okay, let me come now to the conclusion. So I've showed you that we can reproduce the free energy of these bolt solutions, which have MGP boundary. So when the uplift is possible, we have the exact matching, because the free energy of the bolt solution is reproduced by the three dimensional partition function and the large limit of the three dimensional partition function, which is obtained by supersymmetric localization. So we still need to understand the subtleties that arise when different bolt solutions are present in particular, and in particular the ones which arise for the V52 theory. And these bolt configurations are also like present for a very, very short interval of squashing parameters. So we need to also investigate probably what is the status with the stability of these bolt configurations. Moreover, other directions is to try to find, reproduce the on shell action. So there is, since there is another branch of nut and bolt solutions, which preserve one half of supersymmetry, we can think about reproducing those and also checking, check how the matching works there when different bulk feelings are possible. And moreover, we can also try to add the scalars to find the solutions with nuts and bolts with scalars and with more vectors. And in particular, this will give a more general setup in which we don't need to impose that all the fugacities and all the fluxes are equal one to each other. Okay, I think I am leaving this here. The only thing that I would like to, just is more like a appetizer for the people who compute this thing in field theory is that since I mentioned before that this whole project was motivated from the black hole micro-seed counting. So I would like just to mention the fact that, so the counting was performed for static black holes, but if our completion are correct with my collaborator, Kirill Christov and Stefano Scatmatas, we have, we can provide now another rotating magnetically charged black hole solution with some compact horizons. So the solution here is supported by scalars. And in principle, this sort of configuration could be a minimal to micro-state counting in the dual ABGM theory. And this would be very interesting because the new horizon geometry of this configuration here falls in the same class of the fast spinning black holes which are indeed present in our universe. So it would be very interesting to see that localization in this sort of space times and for anti-sitter black holes has something to say about more realistic setting because the new horizon geometry falls into the same universality class. So, okay, now I'm ready to leave.


Hello and welcome. We're meeting today in the context of a pandemic that has put nearly half of the world's 3.3 billion workforce at risk of losing their livelihoods. And the pandemic, as we've just heard, has shone a spotlight on the stark inequalities between jobs, between regions, between black and white, men and women, and between generations. It's shown us that those who do the most important work earn the least. And when we've most needed care, for example, we've all seen that our existing settlements are threadbare. The truth is that these challenges are not new. Before the pandemic, everything was not fine. But the challenges have become glaring. We can see their root causes in a series of social and economic imbalances that are rooted in a way of life that exceeds our ecological limits. And these are the challenges at the heart of the Great Reset. We've been here before. In the post-war era, new forms of social infrastructure from the United Nations to European welfare states were a response to the deep disruption of war and the profound social and economic inequalities that preceded it. In the 20th century, war and public outrage at inequality led to a social revolution in the form of a new social settlement. So the question is, what should we design now? How can we make a transition to a more equitable future where good work is the norm? How can we address the legacy challenges, which mean that even in the good times, millions live lives of deep stress and precarity. What does a 21st century settlement look like? And what is the role of business, the state and social movement in bringing it into being? I'm Hilary Cottam. I'm a social entrepreneur, a young global leader, and I work on the redesign of welfare systems. And this morning, I'm just delighted to be joined by such an esteemed panel. His Excellency Paul Kagami, the President of Rwanda. His Excellency Pedro Sanchez, the Prime Minister of Spain. James Quincy, CEO of the Coca-Cola Company. Joanne Jenkins, CEO of AARP. Sharon Burrow, General Secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation. And I'm also delighted that we've got Saadia Zahidi from the forum with us and she'll make some closing remarks. So our time is very short to try to dig into some of these complex questions. But Prime Minister Sanchez, perhaps I can start with you. In many countries, the pandemic has revealed these inequalities, some of them deep rooted as in the case of structural youth unemployment. So can you tell me briefly about some of the measures that Spain has taken in response? Okay, thank you. Good morning to everyone. I would say that COVID-19 has prompted a massive policy response with large similarities in the instruments, use and objective tips pursued by most governments. We have changed the paradigm. From the start of the pandemic, the Spanish government set out what we call a social and economic shield to protect families, workers and companies. And let me highlight four of these measures. Short-time work and full-load schemes, a tool that we want to turn into a permanent fixture in our toolbox. At the age of the first wave of the pandemic, 3.6 million workers were covered by these schemes. At the end of 2020, this number was down to more or less 750,000. It's 79% reduction since April. More than 750,000 young workers under 20 have benefited from this. The second is the minimum living income, a permanent measure that will support more than 850,000 vulnerable families to tackle structural inequality. The third law on teleworking to provide flexibility to both companies and workers. And finally, bank warranty facilities of over 87 billion euros. This has allowed companies to receive 115 billion euros in financing, supporting more than more or less 600,000 companies, mostly SMEs and self-employed. And now my country, as you know, is one of the main recipients of the recovery and resilient plan in the framework of the European Union, with an allocation of nearly 70 billion euros in transfers for the period 21-26. Three aspects need to be emphasized of our plan. The first investments that will create jobs and transform our economy. Second, enact long-lasting reforms that will rise productivity and also competitiveness. And finally, upskillings and risk killings of workers into sectors with high demand, mainly ecological transition and digitalization. In my view, this is key. Thank you very much. Thank you so much, Prime Minister. I mean, I'm very interested that you talk about the transition into the kind of green jobs and what that might entail. I mean, do you think just very briefly that that, I mean, that really does require the design of a new social contract? Because previously, we've just thought about people falling out of work rather than this fundamental transition we've got to make often for people who are in very good work but need to switch jobs if we are going to have a green new deal. Can you say a little bit about what specifically Spain is doing on that front? Absolutely. At the European level, as you know, we have agreed some weeks ago to further 55% reduction of greenhouse gas emission by the 2030. The Spanish government is second to none in the ambition to progress towards the carbonized economy. Early last year, we formally approved the state of climate emergency and we will soon approve in the parliament, the national parliament, a major law on climate change. By 2030, 74% of the electricity will be generated through renewable energy in currents with a trajectory towards 100% renewable electricity sector in 2050. In the next three years, we will invest 1.5 billion euros in the development of green hydrogen projects and about 1 billion in the circular economy is a key level of industrial modernization in the Spanish economy. And we will also channel resources for the recovery and resilience plan to renovate 500,000 homes and buildings and enhance their energy efficiency. So we're very committed with these transitions. We want to also to integrate the social perspective and also the territorial perspective in the ecological transition. And therefore, we we found a huge opportunity to create jobs, new jobs in new sectors. And of course, we have the the challenge of the employability, especially for the youth. Yes, well, I hope we might come back to that because structural youth unemployment is of course not just a problem that Spain is facing. But President Kagami, if I can turn to you, I mean, when we think historically about the 20th century social settlement, I mean, the one thing that's very clear is that it worked very well for largely male, white workers in the global north, but often at the expense of the global south. And I think when we think about designing a new social contract, it's absolutely critical that this social contract doesn't trade one part of the globe against another. And this is something I know you thought about. So could you share some thoughts about what need to be the principles that make this truly a global settlement this time around? Well, the economic forum for arranging this important discussion and happy to be with you, Prime Minister Sanchez and the distinguished leaders from business and civil society. Well, first of all, I think in the situation we are today of the pandemic, we have been learning lessons or things we learned in the past, but never really came to apply. And the pandemic, as we have seen, has hit workers very hard. And governments have responded with the tools available. In Rwanda, for example, we have established the economic recovery fund of around 100 million designed to help companies stay afloat. We also used the agriculture reserve to supply food to vulnerable families during lockdown and paid health insurance for two million citizens. This crisis has revealed gaps in the existing social protection systems everywhere in the world. So to your point, therefore, we've seen how the world has been affected. We have seen how the world has responded. And it has just brought to the surface the existing problems you have known before, but not tackled. In many cases, these systems had already been hollowed out due to fiscal austerity and erosion of labor protections. This has been a very key feature of the problems we are talking about. Fixing this is something that needs to be done anyway. It will also make our societies more resilient in the face of future pandemics, because maybe there are so many around the corner. The social protection agenda cannot be limited to one of the countries, indeed. We, in fact, the pandemic has also reminded us of how we are interlinked and how we are interdependent in many ways. So that in one part of the globe, things happening will affect the other part as well. It doesn't matter how rich or how poor we are. It must be inclusive, therefore, globally. Otherwise, existing inequalities among countries will only grow wider and the working conditions in developing countries will degrade. An important point is the arbitrary distinction between formal and informal sector employment, particularly in the developing countries. Many earn their livelihood as small-scale entrepreneurs, especially women and young people. We need, therefore, innovative and comprehensive approaches to social protection that include workers of all backgrounds and types. I have learned that there is suggestion for Global Social Protection Fund, and this is a bold idea that merits serious consideration by policy makers. So I thank you for inviting me to share briefly what we can. Thank you very much. I mean, I think we know that some of the most innovative protection strategies have actually been developed on the African continent by informal workers that have kind of shown us the way the union movement might move, in particular, and perhaps we can come back to that in the questions. I'd be very interested. James, can I turn to you? One of the aspects of the post-war social settlement that most interests me and is often overlooked, I think, is the role that progressive business leaders played. And I've developed this concept of the idea of the new industrious to describe people who have led businesses in every previous technology revolution, and they've gone against the opinions often of their peers, sometimes of their boards, to argue for a very different settlement for workers, not because they're philanthropists but because they think this is how capitalism can move forward. So where do we see this progressive thinking in business today? I've heard you, for example, speak very powerfully about the legacy of racial inequality and your commitment to this in your business. Yeah. I mean, I do really think business leaders must help shape an economy that works for everyone. I mean, as you say, it is part of the social contract. And one of the dimensions is greater racial equity and justice within the companies and within society. And if you want to take the simple example that tip-vises in companies, often is the representation at the executive level, let's look at the US. It's got a long way to go. I mean, it's incredibly recently, only 30, 40 years ago, there was the first Black CEO of a Fortune 500 company in the US. The first Hispanic CEO of a Fortune 500 company was 40 years ago. That was actually Roberta Boiswader, who was one of my predecessors and chairman and CEO of Coke. But even today, those many decades on, representation exactly levels is about 14% in the US, which is less than half the representation in the population. So there's a long way to go. And I think leaders need to do two things to push, whether it's this simple example of the broader society issues. One is, people have got to know what your company stands for. And people have got to know you want to reflect the markets that you serve as a company. And setting the purpose is important because without a clear mission and vision on societal and sustainability issues, not just business issues, without that clear mission and vision, the actions and investments won't align and won't come accordingly. We, in 2019, refreshed our purpose to refresh the world and make a difference. And within it, we were very clear that we seek to create a better shared future, to invest in improving people's lives from our employees to all those who touch the business system, not just as a matter of social justice, but as a matter of business imperative. Sorry, we also need to reflect the markets we serve. And so one of the objectives has to be to work with the leaders to ensure that we are representative, creating a diverse and inclusive workforce is a critical social need, but it's also an important business need to foster innovation and connection to the community. And this journey is super important. Of course, globally, racial inequality is a complex issue, but it's also an urgent issue. And so lasting change will only come from a long-term commitment and a strategy that is both sustainable and measurable. So thinking, I mean, if you're an employee of the Coca-Cola company in the US or in India, for example, how do you think that this vision that you've set out is actually going to impact on people's lives? Klaus Schwab has been very clear in the great reset that this is about wage differentials, about new tax regimes. How do you think that this will actually play out for workers in your company and indeed in other companies? Look, at the Coca-Cola company, I think it's going to play out in very specific ways, which is through the investments, firstly, by the company, in its own employees with training, not just training for skills, but training on diversity and equity in inclusion, so that we can generate representation of the population we serve in the US throughout the organization. US companies have typically been better at the entry-level positions than they've been at the mid-level positions and the executive and the board level has been most challenging. We've done well at our board level. We've done reasonably well at the executive level. We need to do much better in the professional mid-tier level. That's where we're investing our money, but we can't just see the limit of that as our own company or as our own employees. We need to think about our ecosystem. The one great thing large companies like Coca-Cola do is they can influence the entire ecosystem around them of lots of smaller companies and help them to live up to the dream. We can do that by being clear. We set very clear supply principles, policies, not just on racial equity issues, but also deep into sustainability and quality. We can spend a lot more money buying from minority-owned businesses. For example, we committed to doubling our purchases from black-owned businesses in the US, $500 million. We have to see our impact as not just our companies and generating representation, well-paid representation within the companies, but deeply into the ecosystem. Because in the end, it's the large companies that can be the engine of the train that helps all the smaller companies move forward too. Thank you. Thank you for that. I hope we can come back to that. Thank you. Joanne, I'm going to turn to you. At AARP, you are advocating for a particular population group that has been very hard hit in this pandemic, older workers. In fact, the data, I think, is increasingly showing us that young people are bouncing back in some places, but for older workers, the challenge is even greater. How can we make sure that this is also a generational reset and a kind of collaborative one at that, not a sort of pitting of one generation against the other? Well, Hillary, you're correct. We know that here in the US over 420,000 people have died and 95% of them have been over the age of 50. And so we know that COVID has hit older people in a very dramatic way. And I think that as we begin to rebuild this, our new social safety net and sort of do this reset, we have to think about creating multi-generational workforce. In many ways, our work with the WEF and with OECD on the future of work, the pandemic has bought to the forefront immediately as we think about what and contemplate what the five generation workforce was going to look like 10, 15 years from now. We're now in that. And we're seeing the importance of having multi-generational employees in our places of work, the value that they bring by having the use of technology, but also that wisdom and experience in the workplace at the same time as we contemplate and conquer problems that we never anticipated like COVID-19 pandemic hitting us. And so we see the value of having multi-generational workforces and how and how we can keep them in the workplace longer. We saw with COVID, the dramatic need to have healthcare workers come back out of retirement to help with vaccine vaccinations and also with caring for older people. We've seen how technology has changed. We used to think that we need to make sure that older people learn how to use technology and they have shown the resilience and how they've learned to use technology and continue to do their work and communicate in their families using technology. And I think that's, we're only at the tip of the iceberg for how we need to make sure that all of us as CEOs are integrating technology into our work and making sure that every one of our employees understand how we can use technology, not to replace that personal contact, but to use it as a way to accelerate, in our case, the impact that we're having on people's lives every day. We know that particularly an older person who is out of work takes longer to get back into the workplace. And so we need to make sure that as companies, we're making, we're taking the extra effort to make sure that we have staff at all levels on the organization and at all age groups in all diversity. Thank you. Thank you for that. I'm interested in technology front and center, which is not usually what one expects when we're talking about sort of older generations in particular, but I think that's so important. I wanted to ask you a slightly different question as well, because I think AARP is the world's largest not-for-profit organization working across very diverse sectors. And I think something that we can see that's really critical is that new forms of collaboration are going to be absolutely fundamental if we're really going to create a new social contract. We need this collaboration between stakeholders, between business, the state, civil society, and social movements. And at the moment, often these stakeholders are very divided. This is one of the few forums really where we can all come together to discuss. So could you share with us what kind of tactics you think there are that we could use now to create a more meaningful collaboration between these often divided stakeholder groups? Well, thank you, Hillary. You know, one of the things that we did a couple of years ago, because we were seeing the beginnings of this taking place at our membership across the country, and we know that people want to be involved and engaged with other organizations or companies that are in their community. So we took a tactic to say we needed to move AARP, which represents some 38 million people over the age of 50 in the U.S., to move from being a national organization to being a nationwide organization. So we set up offices and structures across the 50 states, and now we're in over 200 or 300 different communities, being in the communities where people live so they can experience AARP and we can provide them valuable insights and information and knowledge, which proved, I think, invaluable during this pandemic. But we've also taken the approach of what we call the three P's, that we have to take personal responsibility for continuing to educate and teach ourselves so that we are employable, that there is a public responsibility at all levels, at state, local, national levels, for the role of the public sector to create guidelines and laws that govern racial equity and disregard against discrimination. And then there is a role for the private sector, that we have to engage the private sector to think and help us solve some of these issues that COVID has brought to the forefront in very dramatic ways about health inequalities, about creating livable wages for people all across this country and indeed all across the world. And so having that, what we call the three P's, personal, public, private, I think is going to be key to bringing together stakeholders so that we can create a society, create this new social safety net that helps everyone succeed, not just the 1% at the top, but that we're creating livable communities and green communities all across this country. Thank you, Joanne. And I'm really glad that you said that people want to be engaged because I think one of the kind of fantastic stories about this pandemic is that we've actually seen this, that sometimes leaders distrust that there will be participation, but actually we've seen in communities and neighborhoods everywhere, Britain, the US, Rwanda, that people do want to engage. And that leads very nicely to you, Sharon, because you are a radical trade unionist and you have called for people power to be at the heart of a new social settlement. And you've been a beacon for many of us in that call. And I know you're developing a new concept of a global social protection fund, which I want to come to. But first, I want to just ask you a broader question about the union movement in this current revolution, because looking back at previous technology revolutions, we see that profound changes take place in labor organizing. You know, we had the guild movement in the 19th century, then industrial mass trade unions in the 20th century. And I think in many places, people have been reminded in this pandemic of the purpose of labor organizing. We've seen people join unions in quite big numbers in this pandemic. But do you really think that the current structures we have are fit for purpose? I mean, President Kagami, for example, has talked a lot about informal labor. Prime Minister Sanchez has talked about the need to kind of make fundamental green transitions. How do you think the labor movement itself needs to be reinvented as part of this social settlement? Well, thank you. He'll re-enter the other panelists. I'm delighted to appear with you all. Union's already knew the crisis we faced before the pandemic hit.  And COVID-19, as the video was set out, very well laid that beard. So we've got choices now. Will people be at the forefront with their environment of a new social contract? Or will we see business as usual? So this week is very important. Let me say there are five worker demands and these come from the unions and they cross all sectors. Because what you don't hear about is in fact the actual breakdown of the labor market. You can't build a global economy. If indeed, as President Kagami said, we've got globally more than 60% of the workforce in informal work, in despair, no rights, no minimum wage, no social protection. And they need to be included. Indeed, our unions are a broad church. We organise in traditional structures. We organise online and we organise in the informal sector, building cooperatives, supporting those entrepreneurs who are, you know, owner entrepreneurs. And they should be covered indeed by the demand. So what are they given the time? Jobs, climate friendly jobs with just transition. That means all sectors must transition. So every worker should be engaged in dialogue with their employer in a tripartite discussions with their governments to get an agreement about transition to a net zero future. That's the security for the planet and for people. Rights, the floor of rights for all workers. Indeed, President Kagami laid this out in terms of the informal economy. But what President Sanchez didn't say is he's been one of the first to actually respond to the union's demands for legislation to protect workers in the explosion of telework. And the ILO Centenary Declaration laid out this floor. It's very simple. It's fundamental rights. It's indeed a occupational health and safety, which we want to be a fundamental right. It's a minimum or adequate living wage on which workers can live with dignity and its control over maximum hours of work. And then, of course, we want social protection. And the global social fund, I think you'll come back to, but social protection fund, but it's vital to really see some global solidarity and a different economic model. And then there's equality, income, race, gender, and there's inclusion. You know, when you saw how many people we had to fight for to get access to health and now access to vaccines, peace, people, just a new model of development, if we don't have a more inclusive world, then we're really just perpetuating the past. And it will bring a lot of conflict. There's a lot more to say, but they're the five worker demands that we want to see form the basis of the social contract. And then, of course, anything people in their communities want to see and feel trust in the future should be included by them. Thank you, Sharon. I mean, can you talk a bit more about the global social protection fund, about what's new and how you think that the important demands you've made will actually, you know, what traction do you have to make sure it goes beyond just a sort of right that sits there, but people can't actually access and bring into the everyday? Well, precisely. We've had the right, in fact, the UN system over 10 years ago now, led by, indeed, you know, a UN ILO sponsored commission actually set out the demand for universal social protection and the social protection floor. But indeed, we now have 75% of the world's people with little or no social protection. Again, President Kadami laid this out. So this is a moment of solidarity. If the spend on recovery to date or just indeed sustaining through the crisis to date is 13 trillion or so, we could get to 20 trillion or beyond. Are we prepared to take, you know, some billions of that and kickstart social protection funds? Because if you don't have a new social contract that is actually about our recovery, but it's also about resilience and a flaw for the future, then we're not serious. So the funding gap for the poorest of countries is around 80 billion, even getting partway there to help build those social protection funds. So we support this. It'll go to the G20 leaders this year. France has been incredible in leadership. Germany, Italy, the EU, the ILO, the OECD, Argentina. We need to make sure that we are building a world where our neighbours prosper in a new development fund and a new world development model. And that means let's underpin it with a social protection fund for the world. And let's fund that with a combination of debt relief. We've gone so far, but the business community through the ICC and we support going even further. Let's get debt workout mechanisms to give developing countries a fair go. Let's add to that with liquidity swaps from special drawing rights in solidarity, but let's fund tax, the recovery through tax, not austerity. We really have to change the model, break up global monopolies and make everybody pay their fair share. Thank you very much, Sharon. I'm hoping we can come back to some of this. We've been joined online by a very large audience around the world this morning who are asking us many questions. So I'd like to just dip into a few of those questions now. I've been asked specifically President Kagami to ask you about what practical things you are able to provide. I'm going to this question because it links directly to what Sharon was talking about and she's been talking about the work you've been doing. But what real protection can you provide to informal workers and to social entrepreneurs? How can this really play out in practice? We know, I mean, in my own country in the UK that it's been very difficult to reach some sectors of the workforce who have been left out. So could you share with us actually how you're doing this? Thank you. I think the first thing you have said about people being engaged, people feeling that they are part of what is going on and they can participate, they can benefit, is very important. And that comes from how government recognises that fact and works with different groups, whether in the formal or informal sector. And organisation is very important. So what you have been doing is to organise people in different sectors and government therefore interacts with them to know what the government can contribute, what the people themselves can be able to put together and how they work with the private sector as well, varying some of the tools or resources as may be required. As I mentioned to you, when we were hit by this pandemic, what we have tried to do is recognise. For example, it has involved lockdowns and so on, no different restrictions. But we made sure that all along we have been, for example, we have had in agricultural sector, we never have every harvest every year. We have put aside food to create stocks, always prepared for anything that might come in the future. So some of these people, we know some of rural areas and poor people will need to work for what to live on in terms of food. So we, because of the organisation we have put in place, we are able to enable the Maxis food and government has made that contribution to make sure that they get food they want. And as I also mentioned earlier, we have set up an economic recovery fund from our resources to make sure that whenever there is that opportunity, companies, small enterprises can go back to doing what they need to do to get the economy running. And this money has gone to specific areas. But again, we rely on how organised there. And in fact, sometimes we are able to identify those who need whatever we give them from their own organisations. They point areas of need, they point the people who have been hit most, and therefore we follow that and make sure that everything is moving in harmony. So organisation is key and representation and being mindful that everybody needs to be brought into the fold and engaged. Well, I think what's very interesting about what you're saying, President Kagami, is that you've got a very localised strategy. You don't expect some centralised kind of one-size-fits-all to work. And again, that's something we've seen, I think, in many of our nations in this pandemic about how we need to have sort of horizontal forms of organising localised, not sort of top down, which again is a big shift from the way we might have seen this in the 20th century. Now, I'm being asked a lot of questions about young people. I'm being asked when we perhaps the older leaders think it might be time for us to step down and let younger leaders take over. I'm also being asked questions about specifically how younger people can be positioned in the labour market. And perhaps Prime Minister Sanchez, I can come to you because you have talked very powerfully before about how the structural problems of youth unemployment in Spain, and after all, Spain is not the only country with this problem, are not being solved by 20th century education systems. They're not being solved by just providing any old job. But young people, they want meaning, they want a different role in their lives, that we have to have something fundamentally different at the heart of this new social settlement. So could you talk a little bit more about that?  How do you see this sort of socially, culturally, as well as economically? Thank you, Hilary. I think that youth unemployment is unacceptable high in Spain. Last available data showed that 40% of workers under 25 years old can't find a job. So since the present issue is at the centre of my government agenda, we're ready to take decisive actions at this front. Let me highlight three areas of intervention in this respect. First, education and vocational training. We have just approved a new educational law and we're working in new law on vocational training, which I personally consider is crucial. Second, digital skills. We will spend more or less 2.5 billion euros in a massive plan to advance digital skills with a special focus on girls. And finally, job contract regulation. We will review all incentives to hire young workers and will reinforce apprenticeship contracts so that they are used not as a cheap label, but to ensure continued learning of young people. Against the context of the recovery and resilience plan, we will modernise the design of active labour market policies with the view to enhance youth employability. In so doing, we will invest more than 750 million euros, especially dedicated to youth employment. So yes, we consider that this is one of the major challenges to work in the short and medium term. Okay, thank you. Just on the cultural point, James, you have a company that is a kind of cultural icon in that sense. How do you see the positioning of this and young people in particular in your company and young workers? Yeah, absolutely. We need to do everything we can to keep the entry points open for the young workers. Ultimately, we have four generations of employees running through the company, but we have to, as a matter of investing in the future, keep bringing in the young people, keep investing in that training, whether they be on the professional side or in more of the manufacturing and the distribution side. So we're maintaining open all those doors to bring them in because obviously in an economic crisis, and we're not through the health crisis yet, but the economic crisis is there too, certainly wading in the wings. And I think it's the role of the large companies and influencing down into their ecosystems to continue to generate the entry opportunities for youth. I mean, just today in the newspapers it's saying it's going to be the hardest graduate market for a decade. And so that is the role of the companies. And we have to invest to see ourselves through and be known for a great place to work for professionals, but also back to Sharon's point, a great place for blue collar workers who can get a job that can afford a car and a house and a good standard of life. Okay, thank you. I'm just going to ask one final question. A number of people are asking cultural questions, actually, they're saying, what is the role of arts, culture, museums in a new social settlement, which is very interesting, because of course, in the Roosevelt New Deal, art and artists were right at the heart of how we thought about society. And then they're also, I think, can help us reimagine things like Joanne, the generational contract. So I don't know. I mean, can I just ask you, Joanne, just to make a kind of comment on this or anybody else who wants to come in? Sure. Let me first say, for the previous question that I don't think it's either are hiring younger workers or older workers. I think the our research shows that over 6000 global companies that we reached out to, 83% of them said that they get a greater value and a return on investment when they have multi-generational workforces. As someone who spent 15 years of my career at the Library of Congress as one of the iconic cultural institutions, I think it's so important that we use this kind of culture, whether it be art or history, museums, libraries, they play such an important role in helping to define a culture to learn from the past and also be prepared to think about the future in different ways. And we can learn from those historical documents and pieces. And how important it is to have that to to bring about well-rounded individuals in communities, as well as as employees and organizations. And so I think that there is a very vibrant role for cultural institutions as we could in place a new social safety net around the world. Okay. Thank you. I mean, Sharon, I'm sure that you would like to also, we're almost out of time, but I'm sure that, you know, this is a sector as well, that you're helping to organize and think about rights for the cultural sector as well. Well, it's critical. And when we saw who was left out of the social floor, that Union is actually proud to see advances on during the pandemic. It was indeed in amongst the many other people, the culture, the arts, the workers who provide us with the soul, if you like, of our communities and indeed the entertainment that gives us all, you know, a sense of living. And they were totally left out. So if we need that floor of rights, a social protection frame that's inclusive for everybody, it's absolutely about that. And they must be seen as real work. Part of the problem in the way we define work is indeed it's simply divided into those that think this is work and those that don't. Yeah. And these are real workers, but they're also the soul of our community. Thank you. Thank you, Sharon. We're almost out of time and we could, I mean, I'm so grateful to the panelists, all of you who've joined us. The questions are really big. I mean, I think we've got room for optimism. We have, as we've all been talking about being shocked by the inequalities people have been awakened at the same time we've seen that we can pivot at speed and new things can happen. Sadiya, I'd like to ask you to make some closing remarks. And Professor Schwab has encouraged us to reflect, reimagine and reset. So could you talk to us a bit about this in the context of the work of the social new social contract that you lead at the forum? Thank you. Thank you so much, Hilary. I think it's been a very rich conversation and we can probably glean from it five sort of takeaways of what are the new features of this new social contract. One is that to have opportunity for all, you actually do need to create customized solutions, customized solutions for women, for youth, for older workers, for people of different abilities, for people of different races, people of different ethnicities. The second key feature is that we do actually need a new approach to labor laws, to education, to reskilling, to health, to redeployment, to social protection because of this new technology driven economy that we're now a part of. Third, there is room for optimism as you just said. We actually can have a new approach to job creation in various sectors, whether that's in education, in the care economy, in technology, as long as it is compatible with the planet and with a move towards a greener economy. Fourth, this new social contract can be based on new types of incentives from governments, but also built into it the creativity and innovation and capital of the private sector, as well as the deep involvement of the communities that are actually involved, the specific groups that need greater support from this new social contract. And finally, this has to be both national and global. A lot of the implementation has to be done locally, but there is essentially a new global social protection floor that we need to be aiming for. Finally, thank you so much to you, Hillary. Thank you to the Prime Minister. Thank you to the President. Thank you, James Quincy. Thank you, Sharon Burrow. Thank you, Joanne Jenkins. And the World Economic Forum platform is available for continuing this dialogue, in particular through specific initiatives on the reskilling revolution, on the new social contract, on racial justice and on social justice. Thank you.