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.
The onyl thing that seems to grow when you take in refugees from the middle east is the number of rapes.
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".
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.
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.
If the state borrows money for welfare then gdp increases. gdp per head though will decline if immigrants do not work.
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
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