I think that the interpretation that all non-degree based qualifications should be deprecated, if indeed that is what is intended, is really stupid, and it will lead to endless disasters. The problem is, they already have decided they are going to do this. Its being framed as "a big gift to developing countries for playing the game". But as it creates a sort of second class noncitizen guest worker who are tied to a specific job, who make less money, likely replacing many decent jobs, including many done by recent legal immigrants and naturalized citizens, as well as native born workers, due to this I suspect the total amount of money sent back home and earned by workers from countries such as India, will likely fall, not rise, a lot, because the gains for the companies that supply (in their words) three workers for the price of one. is money that doesnt go to other workers. Also, it creates emnity which otherwise would not exist. Perhaps the ost income will be a lot. Confidence in the system and trust will plummet. The MNCs wouldn't be pushing it if it reduced their profits.It will however shift many jobs from the public sector and professions where they are the anchor jobs holding communities together, to turn them into precarious employment. They probably are determined to disregard experience as non-objective because they have gone to great lengths to set up an extremely complicated system which turns all the advantages of the current system into nothings, all the arguments which would require we return things to the way they were, have all been systematically done away with. What emerged is a system which wont engage on them. A system totally deaf to the public's needs and wishes and common sense, and based on dishonest everything, by design.
Of course, that is not how these changes are framed.. (Note that the source for these words below is NOT about the changes I am talking about, I picked these words because they were appropriate to the situation but the author and his work are not about them.. not about these things specifically, although in the case above it does well at explaining the how these changes are being sold)
"When a leader gives his daughter a government contract, it’s nepotism. But it’s also cooperation at the level of the family, well explained by inclusive fitness , undermining cooperation at the level of the state. When a manager gives her friend a job, it’s cronyism. But it’s also cooperation at the level of friends, well explained by reciprocal altruism, undermining the meritocracy. Bribery is a cooperative act between two people, and so on. It’s no surprise that family-oriented cultures like India and China are also high on corruption, particularly nepotism. Even in the Western world, it’s no surprise that Australia, a country of mates, might be susceptible to cronyism. Or that breaking down kin networks predicts lower corruption and more successful democracies. Part of the problem is that these smaller scales of cooperation are easier to sustain and explain than the kind of large-scale anonymous cooperation that we in the Western world have grown accustomed to".
But, thats not it, although they pretend it is. (Unless large scale cooperation is the cooperation to eliminate things like minimum wages and unions and five day work weeks, as a "trade barrier")
They're saying all the right words, pushing all the right buttons to appeal to a certain segment of people.
But what they are actually doing is not helpful to anybody except them. So its the nullification of democracy, something completely different.
Anyway, please forgive me. I have to stop now.