Most Swedes recognise immigration is necessary to sustain economic growth

[sle]

The majority of refugees taken into sweden dont even have a job, how does adding a bunch of people who live off the government grow an economy?

The subject is "immigration is good for economic growth". What fraction of Swedens immigrat population is recent refugees? What fraction is Muslim? What fraction is unemployed?

For fuck sake, this is an "economics" section. It's a quantitative field, so try to make logical, quantitative arguments.

 

[Max E.]

The subject is "immigration is good for economic growth". What fraction of Swedens immigrat population is recent refugees? What fraction is Muslim? What fraction is unemployed?

For fuck sake, this is an "economics" section. It's a quantitative field, so try to make logical, quantitative arguments.

Did you even read the initial article? You are a moron, the whole article was about the recent influx of refugees into Sweden, you want to make an argument please tell me how adding tens of thousands of people to the welfare rolls grows an economy.

 

[Max E.]

The onyl thing that seems to grow when you take in refugees from the middle east is the number of rapes.

 

[Scataphagos]

Really? What do you know about immigrat population in Sweden (hint - it's not majority Muslim). Do you even know any Swedes personally? Could you even find Sweden on a map?

You shouldn't be running your mouth that way... you've inferred that the majority of Swedes want muslims to flood their country to "sustain economic growth".

 

[sle]

The subject of the thread is "Most Swedes recognize that immigration blah blah". Maybe you can't read well, seems to be a common problem on ET.

The attached article does nothing to prove or disprove the point, it's a typical piece of political bullshit. I don't have a stake in the argument, I am merely pointing out that you guys are flinging political poo in a forum dedicated to economic analysis.

 

[sle]

You shouldn't be running your mouth that way... you've inferred that the majority of Swedes want muslims to flood their country to "sustain economic growth".

Sorry, what? Where did I infer that? Where did I even say ANYTHING about Sweds preferences? I just merely pointed out that you, among others, say hearsay stuff and pretend that it is economic argument. Also, you moved the point of discussion from immigration to Muslims, which is not the same thing.

 

[just21]

If the state borrows money for welfare then gdp increases. gdp per head though will decline if immigrants do not work.

 

[OddTrader]

The subject of the thread is "Most Swedes recognize that immigration blah blah". Maybe you can't read well, seems to be a common problem on ET.

The attached article does nothing to prove or disprove the point, it's a typical piece of political bullshit. I don't have a stake in the argument, I am merely pointing out that you guys are flinging political poo in a forum dedicated to economic analysis.

Off my head, my guess is there should be quantitative model to find out an optimal number of immigrants for the country to accept during a certain period in order to maximise the country's economic gains.

In the article it says they understand and evaluate the long term benefits to be measured by generations. Rather than year, which is too short term measures.

It appears to me the article isa fairly informative one, supplying quiet a lot of practical information which is also quite objective. A typical style of theirs, culture-wise and intellectual-wise.

Accepting immigrants or not and how many should be very much depending on a country's needs. And there are so many economic factors, not just GDP alone.

ET posters using their conventional views and arguments usually from the politics forum would not be workable here in this economic forum - trying to convince us to accept their political views. I would think.

Muslims is only an excuse in the US and could be the best obvious excuse for not to accept any ME immigrants for now due to economically not viable in short term during these years. Due to also plenty of low cost labour supply from Mexico.

However, using bad news caused by immigrants, especially from Muslin immigrants would not be a logical or rational analysis, at all! imo

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-...ts-may-be-our-greatest-economic-asset/6409042

https://www.oecd.org/migration/OECD Migration Policy Debates Numero 2.pdf

https://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2016/10/24/migrants-bring-economic-benefits-for-advanced-economies/

http://clas.berkeley.edu/research/immigration-economic-benefits-immigration

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/economic-benefits-immigration-5712.html

 

[OddTrader]

The Economic Benefits of Immigration

Diana Furchtgott-Roth
February 5, 2013


https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/economic-benefits-immigration-5712.html

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

America's economic growth is hovering around 2 percent, public debt is $16 trillion and rising, and job creation and labor market participation remain low. Embracing a more flexible legal immigration system can dramatically improve this situation. This paper describes the link between economic growth and immigration, the need for policy change, the misguided history of America's political opposition to immigration, and a rational immigration policy.

Immigrants increase economic efficiency by reducing labor shortages in low- and high-skilled markets because their educational backgrounds fill holes in the native-born labor market. However, the share of immigrants in the U.S. workforce has declined since its 1991 peak. Increased immigration would expand the American work-force, and encourage more business start-ups. Businesses ranging from Apple Corporation to apple growers would be able to find the workers they need in America.

Current law has inhibited such positive developments.

H-1B temporary visas for new skilled immigrant workers, limited at 85,000 annually, do not meet demand. This quota represents just over one twentieth of one percent of the overall labor force. Acquiring permanent residency (a "green card") is a lengthy and potentially costly process. When immigrant talent, such as the 51 percent of engineering doctorate earners and the 41 percent of physical sciences doctorate earners who are foreignborn, are forced to leave the United States, private and taxpayer investment in research loses value.

Such limitations have been the result of opposition, based largely on false premises, to more open immigration.

Opposition to immigration is as old as immigration itself. American anti-immigrant groups have long feared the possibility that immigrants drive nativeborn workers out of jobs. However, this occurs only in the negligible proportion of occupations where native-born and immigrant skill sets overlap. Many economists have shown that immigration increases the wages of native-born Americans.

A growth-oriented immigration policy would allow a greater number of immigrants to legally enter, stay, and work in the United States. Arlene Holen, using Congressional Budget Office methodology, has estimated that if no green card or H-1B visa constraints had existed in the period 2003-07, an additional 182,000 foreign graduates in science and technology fields would have remained in the U.S. Their contribution to GDP would have been $14 billion in 2008, including $2.7 to $3.6 billion in tax payments. Three hundred thousand H-1B visa holders would also have remained in the U.S. labor force, earning $23 billion in 2008 and generating $34-$47 billion in tax revenue over the next decade.

An immigration policy focused on increasing economic growth would seek ways to admit more immigrants with the advanced education levels desired by domestic employers. One approach to increasing legal immigration in a growth-oriented way, suggested by economists Pia Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny, is to auction permits to employers with demand-based minimum prices. This would raise public revenues while creating a market for permits and guaranteeing that immigrants would arrive with employment. Differing prices could be charged for workers with particular skill sets, given demand. Initial revenues could be as much as $6 billion, which could be invested in services that immigrants use.

Such policy innovations would require, as well, resolution of the status of the estimated 11 million undocumented "illegal immigrants" now living and (generally) working in the U.S. The Brookings-Duke Institute Roundtable has suggested that a solution to the problem of undocumented immigrants would begin with the establishment of a workplace verification system, proven to be effective, which allows employers to know promptly whether a potential employee has the right to work in the United States. This would be followed by a series of steps toward legalization—including payment of back taxes, a mandatory fine, employment and background checks, and a citizenship-type test for those wanting to remain in America. These steps were the basis of the 2005 and 2007 McCain-Kennedy comprehensive immigration proposals, and form the core of the Senate bipartisan agreement announced in January. Provisional visas and a path to permanent residency and citizenship could be provided for immigrants without criminal records, provided all requirements are completed.

Immigration benefits the economy, and America must adopt more flexible immigration policies that spur growth.

READ FULL REPORT

 

[OddTrader]

Think about this:

Without spending any money/investment on health/education/etc directly to an individual, a country suddenly got extra a medical doctor, computer scientist, food technologist, mining engineer, specialist nurse, mathematics professor, distinguished musician, accomplished writer/painter/designer/sportsman, foreign language teacher, etc. to serve the country and its people!

For each migrant, the country needs to build a new house, Incrementally!

(S)He will probably help, due to family/friends connections, exporting products one day for the needs of her/his native country in the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States