Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

gef forum


The elites have decided that the social shifts in education include the redistribution of the allocation of jobs to certain countries.  The HB1 visa program has come under recent scrutiny as American STEM workers are being replaced with foreign workers who will work for less wages.  Common Core was ushered in with the promise it would prepare American students for STEM jobs but the fallacy is it reduces the amount of higher level math for college engineering courses.  The NGOs don’t talk about that we don’t need Common Core because of a lack of unprepared Americans to find a STEM job.  The fact is that the majority (approximately 2/3) of Americans who have STEM degrees do not hold a job in that field because they can’t find a job in the STEM industry.  They have been replaced by HB1 workers or their jobs have been outsourced overseas to other human capital.  From The STEM Crisis Is a Myth:

Clearly, powerful forces must be at work to perpetuate the cycle. One is obvious: the bottom line. Companies would rather not pay STEM professionals high salaries with lavish benefits, offer them training on the job, or guarantee them decades of stable employment. So having an oversupply of workers, whether domestically educated or imported, is to their benefit. It gives employers a larger pool from which they can pick the “best and the brightest,” and it helps keep wages in check. No less an authority than Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, said as much when in 2007 he advocated boosting the number of skilled immigrants entering the United States so as to “suppress” the wages of their U.S. counterparts, which he considered too high.

Governments also push the STEM myth because an abundance of scientists and engineers is widely viewed as an important engine for innovation and also for national defense. And the perception of a STEM crisis benefits higher education, says Ron Hira, because as “taxpayers subsidize more STEM education, that works in the interest of the universities” by allowing them to expand their enrollments.


American students/taxpayers shouldn’t take it personally.  It’s part of a global plan to enroll more students in colleges for jobs that don’t exist and replace excellent American education with mediocrity under the smokescreen of equity.  All American students should now accept the current reality of being commonly and equitably unprepared and incapable of higher level studies.  There is a reason for this pitiful education reform by the elites: It’s their shared vision that America is no longer a nation of innovation.  The below graphic from the elites is a goal for 2020.  It’s not that far in the future, is it?  From Global Education Futures Forum map illustrating global education plans from 2015-2035:


GEF 2 India and China


Access the entire map here to see the plans of the elite for the human capital: Download the map.  To practice your Russian language skills, you can download in Russian here: Download the map (Russian version)

Can we hold the CCSSO, NGA, Chambers of Commerce, national/local politicians, school board members/superintendents, state educational agencies, educational NGOs accountable for the *misinformation* on the guaranteed outcomes promised in Common Core?  Maybe outsourcing scientific jobs to other countries is actually the guaranteed outcome the elites didn’t want you to discover.  Is this what is known as false advertising?

Your children, grandchildren, educational systems, culture are being sold out to the global elite. Some comments from The STEM Crisis Is a Myth:

The below comment illustrates the importance of the collective vision of the elites and the need for a blueprint for all countries

This is an excellent statement. It is rare to see such a nuanced expression that is still entirely rooted in one perspective/philosophy (in this case capitalism). It is very easy to let isolationist or nationalistic ideals seep into capitalistic concepts as it hinges on self advocacy, but then the result is enhanced borders and harmful trade policies.

That said, one primary issue with the capitalistic model is (IMO) the key issue raising the alarm. An organization has a disproportionate influence on the market than an individual does. Individual actions do aggregate which does apply collective pressure on the organization, but as the implementation of capitalism (especially now with enhanced market globalization) shows is that the market has so many individuals that there are competing collective pressures which reduce the total effect on the organization. This is further enhanced by the fact that the interests of organizations are more compatible than the interests of individuals creating a collaborative force in favor of organizations.

To be less broad, employers/suppliers have significantly more sway on the market than employees/consumers do, and as a result the Invisible Hand is weighted to the left of center. Consequently, economic policies, salary/employment trends, value (as ratio of quality vs cost) of consumer goods and services, and even economics based cultural attitudes are progressively influenced more by the corporations than the individuals in the market.

Compensation for jobs that are not money focused will continue to stagnate or even decline so long as there is a pool of potential employees willing to work for less pay, and the corporations have a nearly uncontested ability to expand that pool through outsourcing and influencing immigration and educational policies.

I don’t mean to imply some sort of explicit collusion or conspiracy, it is simply corps 1,2,3,n are all independantly lobbying, hiring, etc in the same way because their only interest (as it should be) is maximizing profit and there are limited ways of achieving that.

I love the idea of capitalism, but it’s inevitable end is the displacement of power from traditional sources to new corporate fuedal structures. It served it’s purpose admirably by rendering the old European Royalty essentially obsolete and allowing a close-enough version of democracy to flourish, but is no longer suitable for the modern global age.


A reader asks what many might be thinking:  Why are these promises to make kids STEM ready (no research/data available) via CCSS will allow American students a bright future in STEM (that doesn’t exist)?

We should at least consider the possibility that our impoverishment and demoralization might be an end in itself from their point of view.



Gretchen Logue