Many comments express concern that immigration has led to a surge in crime in Sweden. This suprises me, because the data does not support that concern. Crime rates (number of reported crimes) have either decreased or remained stable over time in Sweden.* During the same period, the population has increased, which means that the crime rate has decreased. Equally important, the rate of lethal violence has decreased over time. It was higher in the early 1990s.** Considering that the population in the early 1990s was 8.5 million and today it's 10 million, the decrease appears even more significant. It concerns me that so many seem to have been misled about the state of crime in Sweden. I also know many of you commented before watching the whole video. That’s too bad because if you watch it all the way through, you'll see that the professor's views on migration is quite nuanced. Anyways, thanks for watching and commenting -- cheers! * See offial statistics at bra.se/statistik/kriminalstatistik/anmalda-brott.html ** See official statistics at bra.se/download/18.62c6cfa2166eca5d70e1dc50/1615395172351/2019_6_Dodligt_vald_i_Sverige_1990_2017.pdf
That's strange. Did the comments include links? In that case maybe UA-cam's filter restricted them. Let's do this: If you email me your comment with the information, I can post it here so people can see it. hello@andresacevedo.com Cheers!
We need to stop looking at GDP. I am Irish and the GDP in Ireland grew tremendously during my early working years, much better than my parents time, but I am worse off than them yet more educated and with a "better" job than they had. GDP is only a good measure for wealthy people (home owners, business owners who can employ cheap labour/not deal with labour laws etc). What is wrong with being more like Japan, a degrowth/stagnant economy? It makes no difference to me if my pay increases but the price of everything else increases, in Japan they protest over a change in price!
From an American, I absolutely agree that this is the case you would think that Americans are the richest people in the world while in reality we have less than our parents and are getting poor by the day. If you want to mirror the economic system of the United States don’t. Everything that’s been done since the early 1970s in the United States, including international trade has worked to undermine the position of US workers and the general population. Well making the top one percent exceedingly rich we have more billionaires than any other country and our people and their living conditions are drastically going down year by year. Not taxing the rich while printing Fiat money is a recipe for inequality because the Fiat money distributed into the economy always goes back to the rich because they own all the companies where the money is being spent and they can avoid taxation so there’s no way to get it back from them to distribute to anyone. And yet the government will continue redistributing from everyone via Fiat money when you print the money, what you are doing is inflating the value of the currency , and deluding the buying which is held by the rich and poor the poor have less buying power to spend, and even though the rich due to the other recipients of the income at a larger proportion so they will always get disproportionately rich well all money is diluted the poor become poor and become richer because they are the recipient of the . The idea that England is almost as poor as Mississippi is ridiculous. If you were to remove the top 1% and look at GDP in the United States it would drastically fall. I have never heard of an American that lived in Europe or currently lives in Europe, that thought life was not better in Europe than it was in the United States at least materially, as far as having money left over at the end of the month and the cost of housing. I’m not saying I would want to live in Europe because most of the countries are tyrannical in their very nature and this could be seen during Covid the Austrians are no less Nazi today than they ever were. Unfortunately American capitalism is a shit show. Scam held up by the petrodollar and by externalizing inflation by getting everyone to use the dollar by loaning out massive amounts of it and debt that have to be repaid in dollars and other similar schemes. Of course, all other countries do this as well, so I don’t feel bad For the people to whom it is externalized because they are just trying to avoid even worse local currencies that do the same thing.
@SeanAustace-zk3mc your points make a lot of sense but believe me- the situation is much worse in other regions of world today. In India, we are having impressive growth rate, massive FDI and GDP has grown tremendously during these years but the wealth gap has become worst. I feel quite amazed when I hear that another Indian made it to Forbes list while 60 % of population has to be provided with basic necessities by government. I do think that Europeans have a better condition than USA. My friend who has been to both places told me about importance of leisure in life of a European but still many European economies are also facing crisis these days. It's time of Global Recession followed by wars which have made us economically worse.
@@sarikamishra1897 even before I knew the details, years ago I once said to an acquaintance of mine that one particular neighbour of India was generally richer than India. My theory was that India had around 100 billionaires while that country had none, and its GDP was a bit lower than India's. So wouldn't that country's common people have more wealth than India's? Also a lot of this talk about GDP growth is mere numbers connected to stock price of companies that may go down or even vanish later.
Romanian here. I must say that they misrepresented the story about our health care system. Although there is no denial that Romania suffers from a brain/workforce drain, that is NOT the real reason why many patients were sent abroad for treatment. It is endemic corruption. Nurses and doctors couldn't work properly due bad conditions in hospitals, drug shortages, and last not but least mismanagement.
@@TB-zb8jw are you an AI bot? You claim this vague "business with burn units" ?!?!? and also talk about yourself as "someone who studies economics" -that's weirdly unspecific. You say the video and people in it "say nothing," while not saying anything yourself, except maybe things in Romania would be the same, even with "communist torture"(does this mean being bored to death listening to a Western European Communist? Isn't that a Monty Python skit?)
I agree that the situation in Romania was misrepresented! What they don't mention is that the problem with uncontrolled migration is not economic but cultural!!! And this is the area which should receive more attention! It is well k own that Western countries have prospered, but... guess what, so did Romania, despite the 3 million people leaving ( I think this is too big a number, but it is irrelevant) Romania has prospered because we don't have an authoritarian regime... anymore!!!!
the real problem with the romanian healthcare system is that patients are worthless, treated as animals and let to die (this has been fact way before covid) unless you have money for spaga (bribery). Every romanian knows you have a better chance of dying going into the hospital even from a routine procedure if you don't have the money to pay a bribery to all, doctors, nurses everyone in the system that you interact with. Not to mention in the emergency rooms, they literally step over their bodies and let them die (as if they aren't there) when they don't offer bribery.
You completely missed an entire social aspect on immigration. How will the long term culture in Sweden change as a result of these immigrants? How are the immigrants being assimilated into the Swedish culture? You need to redo this essay and take broader aspects of mass immigration into account.
I have found that economists typically view people as labour units instead of having nuanced cultures . Economists just see people as numbers on their balance sheets instesd of humans who have to live with each other. That immigrants often work for less than natives, their presence is an incentive to natives to accept less. Natives see that as a negative, but Economists see that as a positive.
How about atheist/agnostic arabs and africans seeking a culture that aligns with their beliefs and values? I'm an agnostic Moroccan and I don't feel safe or home in my home country
@@cinnamonroll8473Atheist Arabs are an astronomical minority in the make up of immigrants that have moved to Scandinavia from 2015 to 2024 from countries like Syria, Irak, Afghanistan, Libanon etc. This is not the 1970’s and Iranians fleeing an islamic totalitarian regime. Religious beliefs, or lack there of, aside the cultures are extremely different from one another - down to very minute things such as keeping your apartment clean, not disturbing your neighbors or people out in public, not respecting or being highly skeptical of the police or other government authorities etc. It’s a non compatible relationship between these two cultures, and Scandinavians have grown extremely tired of it.
@chris_noswe I was talking about highly educated, respectful and agnostic arabs. These are the minorities that suffer in their own countries because who they are is so incompatible with their environment. These are who, in my opinion, should flee their Islamic oppressive backward surroundings. And no, you are mistaken, it is dangerous to openly express that you are not a muslim in islamic countries.
@@buckyfanksy Not really. Watch the entire video and you'll see that the video also mentions how devastating immigration can be. The video is NOT on how good immigration is and that it's something amazing. The video is about there are both good and bad to it, just like how there is to every single thing. The video just contains examples of the good AND the bad
@@dragomon2 It is propaganda, becouse: 1.Use GDP not GDP per capita PPP. 2. Made one group from all non-citizens (There is diffrence between EU origin non citizens and refugeees from middle east), 3. Do not calculate whole life impact at state budget, only look at it they work (Denmark calculate it end for middle eastern people it is negative).
@@dragomon2bro just made one statement about how migration puts pressure on the housing market, schools policing, etc. and spent the remaining 13 minutes praising it. And what actually bothers most people is cultural issues; the claim the migrants from certain communities make zero effort into integrating. As a migrant brit I find that the politicians who are willing to have an honest discussion about migration aside from nigel farage (dude who led the brexit party, which was a bad decision in retrospect) tend to be those of colour.
In my experience, a growing economy due to migration does not translate to a better standard of living for the population of the target country. I'm a Romanian migrant to Canada, a country with massive immigration. The standard of living has continuously dropped in Canada in the last 25 years, since I moved here. The health care system and housing affordability have both collapsed. In contrast, the standard of living has continuously improved in Romania, especially after it joined the EU. For young people, Romania is now a better country to live than Canada. Unfortunately it has also become a country with net positive migration for the first time in 2023.
@@gintasvilkelis2544it likely means that the immigrant are not ethnic romanians, and/or low-qualification workers, which displeases the dude. Cause otherwise immigration is not inheritly bad for the economy. Look at the whole fricking US history for starters.
The question is not how many foreign workers you have doing whatever jobs. The real question is why can't you self-populate your own country with enough people to sustain and grow your economy and country ? Why do your young people lack the hope, trust, confidence, and faith in your society that would encourage them to marry and have children ?
Is not hope or any of that U mentioned. Is porn addiction, huge ego and selfish generation of unable to connect and see other people's worth from anything different than Money or status..me European Youngsters DO NOT ÑOVE ANYONE' but them selves and their social media status ❤
The last person that encouraged its people to marry and have kids by offering loans with almost no interest and simultaneously tried to get rid of foreign people that were ruining his country was attacked by a certain group of people…he even helped the people go to another land just like England did
@@gintasvilkelis2544 it was in Germany marriage loans ..he also worked with Zionists to ship people to Palestine. Look up Havaara agreement…. He brought hope to the German people after WW1 and got them out of economic despair.
This is a very good question that is mostly answered by a culture War. If I remember correctly in sociology, wealthy Nations tend to have lower birth rates. It has nothing to do with hopes and dreams and stuff like that, or perhaps yes the more you have the more you want and the more that costs, and you don't want to have to share with little kid. Where I live, they say that the child will cost you about a half a million bucks by the time it's 18
Why was economic growth the chosen metric to evaluate the impact of immigration? You didn't mention other important factors like the GINI coefficient, which measures inequality. A March 2023 article in The Lancet reported that Sweden now ranks last among Nordic countries in this regard. Over the past decade, Sweden's GINI coefficient has risen from the mid-20s to the mid-30s, indicating growing inequality. While the wealthy benefit from cheaper labor, this deepens societal divides. Migrants are often exploited, and the average Swede faces worsening economic conditions. Shouldn't we consider the broader social costs as well?
This is interesting. Would like to see him address this. However Sweden did a lot of things that cause inequality in this period, liberalized the economy reduced social spending privatized a bunch of stuff etc so not sure you can attribute the rise in inequality just to migration. You say that had there not been cheap labour available these inequality causing policies would not have had the same effect? It is an interesting topic
But that isnt an issue with refugees themselves. It's a problem with capitalism, exploiting cheap labour to redistribute wealth to capitalists. The govt. shouldn't allow that to happen. Allow migrants and existing citizens to keep a greater fraction of the wealth they generate together. Aid the wealth distribution downwards through taxation, worker unions, minimum wage caps etc.
This is very relevant and will be an interesting case to follow as the immigration has brought in "cheap" labor that I'd like to see over time they can experience the social mobility that Sweden has been known for
I don't think the cost/burden analysis is correct. It should be about lifetime value of a person to a society. Do you make more in taxes than you take in benefits? A cleaner could easily earn more than what was put into his or her education and healthcare etc. A casino manager can not just cost more to the society, but also destroy wealth by getting people addicted to gambling and destroying their lives. I did not think this was a good comparison at all. Plus you should really also mention the political tendency of capital to push for cheap labor immigration to pump up their profits. Less cheap immigration would mean higher wages as companies are forced to pay higher prices for labor. The real story in the West during the past few years seems to be growth of wealth disparity. Middle class is disappearing. Good jobs are harder to get, but stock market growth is higher than ever in history. Low cost labor immigration feeds directly into exacerbating this phenomenon.
Spot on. Housing and wages are major costs but coincidentally they correlate positively with GDP while the working population gets stiffed with the externalities (cost/bills). There's also cultural factors that are hard to quantify: peace of mind, community, alienation... There's a study out of California recently that puts the depression of wages due to immigration at 15%. Quite significant. I think anyone could use a solid 15% more in their pocket. Lifelong care for rape victims isn't cheap either but it sure does increase gdp. Also, we don't know who they considered in their "immigrant" category. That term includes Americans who work in software for example who then skew the data due to their disproportionately high impactdie to high salaries. So this isn't as obvious as they may seem to want. Also, not everything is always about economics. People just don't want to deal with it and complicate things or have tiring debates, and the for sure don't appreciate no go zones or hand grenade attacks. Who gives af whether Sweden grew more? Useless anyways since that money was pocketed by the bosses, not the average Joe. You think Gunnar the Plumber got a 4.5% raise? Also who said there's a correlation with these Syrian Doctors and engineers? Couldve been policy changes or a change in how they measure growth, or a bunch of productive Finns coming in. More people more economic activity, duuuhhh. Do we need professors to see the correlation?
The angle is to take down the argument that immigration is a burden from a cost perspective and how this phenomena is talked about. Immigration adds to the economy and not the opposite which has been the narrative. Society needs hands and not an overvalued never ending flow of digital symbols with no actual worth. England for instance has problems finding people for farming since Brexit and the new restricted policys for immigration. There is a shortage of labour everywhere in a lot of sectors, both private and public. Why is that when there is so much money out there? And the Stockmarket, how does immigration play a part of keeping wages down on a company like Volvo you mean? They are all pretty well paid. Or other companies like that. These companies benefits if anything from cheap labour and not so good regulations abroad. But these companies can't pay bad wages in Sweden. If companies on the stockmarket wants to reduce costs in order to make more profit, that hits everyone. Companies on the stockmarket taking advantage of peoples disadvantages of being newcomers exist absolutely. But that is not a problem of immigration itself. Why is Amazon aloud to exploit workers like they do in the US? Cause they can due to lack of regulations and unions not being able to put pressure on these companies for different reasons. And who benefits from that? J.B! Swedens birthrate is 1,42. Rest of Europe worse. Since you need a birthrate of 2,1 to sustain the population which is the very fundament that the society and economy relies on, we should ask ourself, ok how do we make this work? Instead we have been focusing on costs that didn't exist in the way they were presented by experts and media. Not the benefits. There is a need for another narrative to be told here. A unifying collective one. The neoliberal agenda where immigrants are made scapegoats will not be the answer if you want to see changes that benefits everyone except from the very rich.
The labor unions here in Sweden are insanely powerful. You basically can't get a job without talking to one, and they will not let you start working if you agreed to a lower wage than your peers, and given that almost no where accepts cash in the country anymore, there aren't many "under the table" jobs around. Proper labor protections can help offset that particular downside.
Not really. If your only metric is stock price/growth - you incentivised to do whatever to achieve that. Cutting costs, optimizing business structure, offshore everything etc.
The benefits that an immigrant receives are not just public services and handouts. They enjoy reliable electricity supplies, roads, bridges, dams, water and power distribution networks, education, telecommunications, health and welfare systems, that have taken the native population generations to build. Immigrants crowd up everything. Immigrants contribute to the need for still more infrastructure, that everyone has to pay for, not just the newcomers that make it necessary,
The English version of the linked bra statistics se page states: "Up until a few years ago, Sweden was counted among the European countries with relatively low levels of homicide. However, the homicide rate has increased in Sweden, and is now higher than that of many other countries. The increase in Sweden is primarily linked to an increase in gun violence." So the official statistics organisation flatly contradicts you. People who adhere to a violent, xenophobic, and misogynistic ideology commit violent crime. Especially the males. And that is ignoring the costs from housing pressure, on healthcare from inbreeding, also a part of their ideology, and the pressure on social services, and the general loss of safety in public spaces.
Just because it has increased, that doesn’t mean it’s high. And like you said, people who commit violent crimes are usually men. Specifically, men between the ages of 18 and 24. Should we do something against that group?
Man just say it directly. Stop hiding behind these polite words. Just say that you hate black and brown people. Just say that you think they are savages. Just admit it. Just admit that you're bigoted person.
I appreciate the nuance you’re trying to bring to the immigration issue, but this is a topic that would take literal hours to even try to dissect fully. There are far more reasons local populations don’t want immigration beyond just the economy, in Canada for instance there is a severe lack of housing, a “real” constraint; so when immigration quotas go up, it severely hurts renters and takes stock out of the housing market that is badly needed. There are cultural issues as well. Very few people who live in a certain area with a certain culture will be overjoyed by a huge group of newcomers who all cling together, refuse to speak the new local language, and carry with them the baggage of a culture that isn’t congruous with their new surroundings. These are very real issues, and to ignore those in lieu of other brighter parts of immigration happens at our own peril, because they must be taken into account when discussing this topic.
Agreed, but also he didn't go into how the immigration would help the countries with a demographic crisis due to low birth like Spain. Or how not all immigration is the same i.e. all of latin america having closwr cultural ties to spain portugal and italy and their impact when moving to the EU
Housing isn't supposed to be a finite resource that acts like a source of rent seeking to the landlord class. Stop pretending as it is to rationalize your racists arguments. Plenty of data actually proving immigration (legal or illegal) is a net positive, and immigrants commit crimes at less the rate than citizens.
It takes time. No national identity exists in a vacuum. Immigration is an old story, and your country is definitely benefiting from it (as a whole), even if some people aren’t receiving those rewards themselves. Just… just don’t do the same Nazi/ Jim Crow shit. We’ve seen that game. It’s a stupid. Do it better somehow
I think the basic thesis is correct. The constraint is Real resources vs Financial resources. However, Real resources also includes intangible things like goodwill from the host population and this can be depleted at different rates depending on a particular immigrants background or the govt gaslighting the population when legitimate complaints are raised regarding some of the negatives of mass immigration. Also financial resources are a constraint when you take into consideration the current corrupt spending model where politically connected businesses get lucrative contracts to provide migrant services, so they spend printed money first and everyone else loses through higher than otherwise inflation.
It's not just the government gaslighting the population, it's channels like this too which point to crime statistics and then try to tell you that what you're seeing in them isn't true.
The video makes an extraordinary claim about Sweden's economy that anyone can check to be false. So, Google "Sweden GDP per capita". What you get is a curve that shows number of about $60k in 2014 (so before the refugee crisis) and that it has yet (so up to the latest data there, 2022) recovered to that level. In fact in 2015 it had a biggest drop of GDP per capita except for 2009 (the great recession). Why would you the professor of economics make such an easily verifiable false claim?
oh the GDP would totally grow when housing prices inflate but the economic condition of the people is actually worse as they can't get housing and/or have to sacrifice alot to get housing. GDP growth number is only good for the wealthy who own most of the economy not the average person.
Yep, basically the main point that this video pointedly ignored, then made up some nonsensical argument for their opposition. I would also like to mention that the economic benefits the video mentions are almost all government spending and won't hold up in the longer term, though the economy will still grow due to the number of people contributing to it, so it's hard to say if it's even good for the rich.
@@ethanwilliams1880exactly! This dude just said economic activity increased due to GOVERNMENT SPENDING, dafuq……why not just return the excess tax money to the payers?
Property owners benefit from high rates of migration because it keeps rents & occupancy rates high. The rest of the public lose out because of the increased load on infrastructure & services. Low stable rates of migration are what’s needed, this allows proper integration education of new migrants & gives time to develop infrastructure & services.
@@fiqhonomics Yes. Bankers own most of everything, especially businesses here in the U.S. The debt is serviced by squeezing out as much profit as possible usually resulting in lay offs.
Yes, it drives up rents and housing cost for everyone so yes, landlords benefit and people looking for housing have to pay higher prices. In labor markets, the supply and demand works on similar levels where an influx of new labor drives down the overall cost of labor a benefit to the companies, but not the workers are the majority living in the society and therefore it is a net negative to most people living in the society only a positive for the business owners. It is why business owners favor immigration, where the general population of workers do not because it is against them , it drives their housing cost up and drives their labor value down while the wealthy benefit on both ends. Basic supply and demand economics no one was arguing against this. You’re spinning it. They were talking about these people commit that you’re pretending they didn’t commit.
The Swedish Central Bureau of Statictics (Statistikmyndigheten) is clear on the subject. Employment rate amongst foreign born in Sweden is lower than among the native born. That's not surprising, not controversial, yet very important in the discussion and crucially - something you can't learn from the video titled "The truth about mass migration" According to the stats report called "Different labour market opportunities for native and foreign born" (in year 2021): Employment rate (with higher education): 80.7% (foreign) vs 90.9% (native) Employment rate (with lower secondary education): 49% (foreign) vs 67.9% (native) @TheMarketExit You chose to include a less relevant statistic painting completely different picture. If you wondered why we can't have an honest discussion about this topic, this is because everyone speaking up has an agenda - including you.
having read true the comment section here. its to high quality for this guy to have "a bad agenda" i would guess he is still bound to the propaganda of our time, not quite ready to truly accknowlage reality. he was told all his life immigrants are great, you are a moster of you dont like them. there is only so much reality his mind can take at a time. immigration is obviously only negative. but its hard to say that for someone inside current society. its like saying god is fake, for a 12th century pessant. this guy migth represent the left starting to get back to reality, its just taking them a while. atleast, thats what this comment section is telling me. its full of "racist demons" while the guy himself clerly comes from a pro " equality " background
Why should the swedish people share their country with other countries. The swedes will never be welcomed to Iran or egypt and keeping swedish culture christian or atheist, women or gays
The economy can grow more rapidly while also inequality becomes worse, the rich get richer and the middle and lower classes suffer the consequences. You can't just look at one metric and say "mass migration actually helped the economy".
The money that is being 'spent out' is coming from where? Of course, more money flowing in the economy shows 'growth'. Growth in what areas and how productive is it? What about the costs in housing, health care and schooling etc? Crime is a cost both socially and economically. Young highly educated Swedes are leaving in droves, why? They are being replaced with largely uneducated migrants. This is an economic cost, isn't it? When that professors protected job is replaced by a migrant, I will start listening to him.
No one told them to hire the immigrant over the nurse. That is more of an internal issue your people need to fight to guarantee locals get job priority. It is not the immigrants' fault. They did not hire themselves.
@@possiblestupidideas8544 In Malta, where one-third of employees are immigrants, the locals get job priority over others and this is not enforced by any law, it happens automatically.
When you have an adult immigrant who works as a doctor, nurse, or cleaner, their home country provided their education, not yours. They contribute to the economy by working, consuming, and paying taxes.
And them acting like the reason we are all suffering thru mass migration is because we needed some medical people is bs. If there is a job not filled by a citizen, there is probably a problem with that job. There is a reason there are so many slinging meat on the sidewalks- there r no jobs. Please tell me 1 job an illegal immigrant is needed for? None. Legal migrants so sign up for the work visas. And they always forget to mention that most of these people bring multiple children & family members with them who are not paying taxes- who are immediately enrolled into schools for free. Citizens don’t get to only start paying taxes when their kids are enrolled.
@@BettyBlack99 Shortage of workers in specific is filled with selective immigration of the workers for the required field and there are legal processes to it but immigrants in mass is supported by the Government in order to divide debt of the country,a debt gathers due to excessive military expenditures abroad.
Why does GDP per capita not show what he says in Sweden? The growth was slower than that of denmark that had no asylum in comparison. The reason why nobody talks about what he says is because he seems to prefer to bend the truth around kindness than harsh facts.
What an incredible video! The style and structure are top notch but the content amazing: fresh, nuanced, informative and provocative. Everyone should dig deeper on this topic through this path so we can have a better conversation on this complex issue. Cheers!
They misrepresented completely what the "cost" of migration calculations in Sweden looked like in 2015. The main thing economists looked at was the previous years in how much they were a part of the tax burden and how much they payed into the system. That number had been negative since the late 90s. The second main thing was how saturated the job market was for jobs that required no skill or expertise. The 2015 prediction was accurate, but it didn't account for the enormous spending that pushed the new migrants into what was basically made up jobs.
You really should interview more than one person when discussing such a large subject as this. All you did was provide a propaganda piece to spread his single view. Good production quality, was hoping for content to match.
This was interesting to watch from a British perspective. Because here in the UK, the fiscal cost-benefit calculation that the professor thinks is irrelevant is usually cited by the PROPONENTS of immigration. They claim that immigrants pay more in tax than they receive in benefits (though the figures are debatable) and therefore they are a net benefit to the economy. I have always been sceptical about this argument as it implies that an immigrant who is paid to dig a hole and fill it in again and who pays taxes on his wages is a net contributor, which is obviously bonkers. However, I’m not at all convinced by this video. For a start, the professor doesn’t explain what calculation he did to come to the conclusion that immigrants do benefit the economy. It’s interesting that the professor mentions modern monetary theory. Proponents of MMT argue that taxes do not fund public expenditure. Rather, the government has an unlimited amount of money and taxes are required merely to prevent inflation. And in a sense, of course, this is true. But in another sense, it is not true. Because if you increase spending and then, in order to guard against the risk of inflation, you raise taxes, that is sort of the same thing as saying that you are raising taxes to fund public expenditure. I think I detect the same sleight of hand in the professor’s argument in this video. He seems to be saying that the resources that an immigrant or a nurse receives from the state (in the form of childcare, health services, education for their children etc.) are not real resources. His argument that they are not real resources is that it is possible to put a monetary value on these resources therefore the resources do not exist! So if an immigrant receives an operation on the Swedish health service and the operation costs 10,000 krona, (I’ve made up the number, I’ve no idea how much it would cost!), the professor believes that because the operation has a price tag, no real resources have been used up! But this is obvious nonsense. The time of a surgeon is a real resource. From everything I have read, it is clear that immigration has increased the number of serious crimes committed in Sweden. Obviously this has an economic as well as a societal cost. Has the professor quantified this economic cost? The police who have to be employed to investigate the crimes, the courts who have to spend time, trying and sentencing people? I bet he hasn’t.
Bearing in mind less than 15% of immigrants actually bloody work in the UK (inc their dependants) their contribution to society is....debatable! We got the good Irish immigrants who worked and contributed. Then the Ugandan Asians who grafted. Now we have the plethora of economic migrant benefit scroungers. Lovely.
Or we could also calculate the amount of citizen crime, and deduce that they are the problem and completely replace them, no ? After all, since the immigrant is but a piece of transportable good without family, feelings or a future in your opinion why are we actually treating someone as deserving simply because their parents had a fun night one day and decided to plop the baby on that particular side of the rock? Lets be real anytime you migrate people by the millions you will have increased crime by default because people are people, however you also have millions of jobs and businesses created (Specially food businesses, cannot deny the kabob business is doing incredibly well in Sweden now)
An important thing you forgot to mention is that market shocks are always bad. A steady stream of immigrants is easier to for any market to manage than a sudden influx. It has more time to react.
Most commenters have not seen the entire video... The idea of actual physical, human and cultural means limiting immigration capacity makes a lot of sense. You can see it in schools where it just naturally takes a huge effort to help foreign-born kids get up to speed and where it is not so much about paying for the extra slot for the kid. The overstretching of "immigration capacities" will threaten, if it has not already harmed the idea of welcoming migrants over the long run as acceptability decreases and public consent is being dismantled. It would have been interesting to have at least a second view on this approach developed by the professor. If such a nuanced view existed... Not so much in order to oppose his view for the sake of debate, but to gain depth on this way of evaluating public policy. Kudos for taking on this hot topic!
What do you mean by get those kids up to speed in school? Mostly they just need to learn the local language and while they're doing that you already have some teachers who speak their language who came as refugees too who can help them with other subjects. Plus some of those kids are gonna know some English as well, you can bet on that, and English is common enough in Sweden that you've got all these little bridges that with some creativity and flexibility can make for a pretty vital education environment. Or maybe you meant something else entirely?
@@almishti there is so much behind the expression "up to speed" and using it probably does not help me make my case. I can tell you from experience that learning the local language is a very long process and much more about finding yourself and integrating into a society than about the actual language part or accessing knowledge rapidly. There are thousands of elements which make a young person able to follow a class in a smooth way, which could be broadly summed up in social behavior and cultural references. Language is the access to these elements, but does not replace them. So, my point is that, broadly speaking, generalizing heavily and on average, children from a different cultural and linguistic background need more attention than others. In a class of 25-30 students, you can have X students needing this special attention without the professor going nuts, these students being left on their own or other students being disadvantaged. Not to say that students from a local background never need that special attention, of course. This is what I like about the approach in this video, which does not question the idea of welcoming people, but highlights the human aspects of our capacity to welcome people in the right way. If you open the door to someone, you must have a seat for him or her to sit down, or a bed to sleep, but also time to spend with that person or, in some cases, look after them. It's not only about the size of the door, the number of seats and beds, but also about human capacity.
I don’t have to watch the entirety of the video when the angle is so evident in chapter 1. If I wanted to be fed a thought piece from one side of the political isle I’d hit skip, and that’s what I did. This isn’t an objective, agnostic report.
@@chris_noswe Not sure that anybody claims it is agnostic, but I still believe it adds to the otherwise binary way of looking at immigration as if it was just about letting people in or not. How do you define the angle which seems to be so obvious? Capacity? I am not asking for the sake of debate.
You make some good points, politicians blaming migrants for everything is a simplistic answer to inequality in a country.Foreign workers i meet do jobs British people don't want to do.Lack of affordable housing and poor infrastructure are the governments fault!
The video talks about GDP, not GDP per capita. "How much they get out from welfare systems..."? Do these welfare systems include the power stations, the water treatment plants and water and power distribution networks. Do these welfare systems include sanitation and telecommunications? Because these comforts did not fall from the sky, and the migrants did not pay for them. Migrants contribute to the need for still more infrastructure that everyone has to pay for, not just the newcomers that make it necessary. Of course, the construction companies love their taxpayer funded projects, as do their employees, many of whom are foreign. And the infrastructure counts as GDP, even though it is paid for by taxpayers.
Trust me as an American, the end game of your logic is the repealing of all social safety nets and privatizing everything. The politicians will use you for this.
@@Pyromancers We would be better off if much of that infrastructure didn't exist. Concrete is polluting and building materials destroy wildlife habitat.
I have to give you that much, the video is well produced, but the content seems quite biased. So I wanted to give you a fair feedback. The first issue is a lack of context in some places: in 1:50 you do not add any nuance to the economic growth of Sweden. It makes it seems like this growth is purely driven by migrants, which probably is not true. There is also no per capita information. 8:02: We are being introduced to Modern Monetary Theory (and the professors book Modern Migration Theory is clearly a derivative of this) but I doubt that most people know that this theory shunned by the vast majority of scholars in this field. Out of the 20+ lecturers I have talked to at university of Zurich, not a single one supported this idea and all of them said it was probably wrong in the long term. Clearly, one university is a cluster, so there is a pattern behind this, but context matters. To argue within the logic of this video: Bank money might seem only limited by our computer storage but in reality money is based on trust - and trust is limited as you can see. Another issue, where context matters is who you count a a migrant. When it comes to the discussion of accepting migrants, their origin tends to matter: According to the Danish government, mean within-EU-migrants are above average contributors to the Danish economy. MAGREB migrants are on average net consumers. It is important to stress, that these are averages, I am used to that kind of data and the assumed underlying normal distribution - other people might not be. But that's why it doesn't make sense to argue for migration like it happened in 2015, just because migrants from Germany, UK and other rich places are more often than not doctors. In the comments (about criminality) you make a similar mistake, where you just throw bigger groups into one bucket: Even if total criminality is going down, your data does not explain which group contributes how much to this. It is possible that the Swedish born population has a decreasing crime rate while the migrant rate is increasing. Just because nothing is happening in the sum, there can still be change. It's the logic of a steady state. I do not know the detailed data for Sweden myself and I cannot be bothered to check. But your argument is incomplete. I will stop here because I am actually supposed to study right now. But I think this criticism can help you make better videos in the future. Again, the production value is promising otherwise I would not have bothered to write this much. Cheers
Thanks for your comment, I hoped someone will debunk this leftist view of immigration ( partial truth ), I hope you debunk all the vid if you have some time. Thanks a lot
Long term this doesn't add up, yes when a government spends it dumps money into an economy which will boost any economy but the long term costs are quite different and it doesn't address the main concern which is not economic but cultural change.
Its different in uk were we have been told for many years how good migration is for the economy, yet the last few years with highest ever migration we have had some of the lowest growth.
His position is quite understandable he sees a Country as an economic zone in nothing else. People are widgets in our interchangeable you’re not actually people connected by blood Language culture etc. it’s just a shopping zone. What’s good for business is just good.
The re-alignment of wealth is what gets overlooked in the equation. Cheap labor creates wealth for corporations and it's wealthy investors while at the same time robs the working class of living wages. I live in California which is the 5th largest economy in the world surpassing whole countries like Russia. Immigration and in particular illegal immigration is a big reason for it's GDP. Agriculture is a huge part of the economy and immigrants have always been a huge part of that industry. Immigrants build the houses, mow the lawns, etc. The previous working class can barely afford rent let alone buy a house and this has set the stage for demagogues who lust for power like Victor Orban and Donald Trump to sieze on the frustrations of the working class. It reminds me of a cartoon I saw where there are 3 guys sitting at a table. One is wealthy and has a plate with a mound of donuts. The guy next to him has one donut on his plate and the guy next to him, an immigrant has no donuts. The rich guy tells the guy with one donut that the immigrant wants his donut. Wealth creates the power to stear the narrative and if we aren't smart enough to see demagogues for what they are then we're screwed.
Migration has had a negative impact on Sweden's government finances, especially in the early years of refugees' arrival. Some say that the cost of receiving and integrating refugees into the labor market is high. In 2015, refugees accounted for 5.1% of public finance revenues but 7.4% of costs, resulting in a net negative contribution of 2.3% of public spending.
In Malta, we overdid it. One-third of the workforce are immigrants, which increased government revenues to the point that taxes will be decreased in 2025 which is the only positive thing. However, this strained health services, traffic, electricity supply, infrastructure, and increased rent, and property prices. Adding to this are millions of tourists and expats who turned the country into English-speaking as your taxi or bus driver, waiter, nurse, or postman are all foreigners. As a Maltese, when I hear the words ''go back to your country'', I say I really wish I could.
Even if I accept everything in this video, there are 2 things missing. - First is the obvious cultural difference. When people in Europe say immigration is a problem, they're not talking about neighbouring countries most of the time, but immigration from outside of Europe. Cultural difference, like not respecting women's rights. - The other thing is: if immigration is not actually that bad, then what do people feel when they see their lives getting worse? What causes that then? Let's say a country has low birth rates, and then someone proposes that immirgation will fix that. But then instead of original citizens' lives getting better, it gets worse. Why is that?
You know, I can’t speak for Sweden. But here in the US the people that speak most about preserving the culture and respecting women’s rights when it comes to immigration, are the same people that actually don’t respect women’s rights. Also, again in the US, I’ve noticed that people who claim we can’t afford immigrants instantly pivot to cultural issues when ever it’s pointed out that immigrants are a net positive for the economy.
If they don't respect women's rights they get arrested and they are no longer part of the culture and Islam supports women's right just in a slightly different way
> then what do people feel when they see their lives getting worse? What causes that then? That probably doesn't have a simple answer and it probably depends on the country. Take Australia, the place I live, for instance: a lot of people blame migration for the cost of living crisis, but lack of goverment investment and excess of monopolies probably have a bigger portion of the responsibility.
Immigration this, immigration that.... How about further destabilization of region from immigrants came from? How about brain drain, worker drain further weakening this countries? How about further lowering life quality? This questions show global crisis where stronger countries cannibalize weaker but there are no stronger countries only these who still have advantage. This advantage are used to keep stronger position to the point when there be no more. The last stage of empire.
I’m Canadian and it is the first time I here that politicians talk about the cost of immigration. All my life I heard that it was good for economy and that they should come to counter the aging population. So I just can’t understand the beginning of the video… Here the gouvernement was planing to bring 500 000 migrants this year. He just revised this number to 400 000 because of the cost of immigration (society is not organized to build that much homes, train and hire that much health workers and teach the language for all these peoples. With such large numbers, these people gather themselves in ethnic clusters and don’t mix with the native population and erosion of the social cohesion bring other cost that are more difficult to estimate…
In Canada , a country that needs people and infrastructure to access resources, immigration is a good thing . But since The 90s we stopped building infrastructure so industries are having a hard time using those immigrants
That is an important point that needs to be added to the immigration discussion: the constraints are not only material resources but also social cohesion and the culture shock when cultures have very different traditions or principles. It is not about judging the traditions of any country, but really thinking if cultures are compatible to live together and under the same values and laws. If a Canadian goes to live in Dubai he/she has to think if he/she is able to adopt and integrate with the population there and shares their values, as no country needs isolated populations (a healthy society needs contributions from everyone) and the same analysis should be done by anyone thinking in migrating. We are not talking about everyone being the same, but sharing common ground in regard to social values and the rights of everyone. No country is ready to have a massive influx of migrants overnight without issues, but also no country will be able to be competitive and thrive without some contact with the outside world and a manageable intake of migrants from other places, it’s a balancing act where no extreme is a good idea.
@@GeekyJediMister So, Americans, with their different culture and traditions and principles, should have their culture, traditions and principles blocked at the border of Canada. No more American books, films, television, music. French culture should be blocked at the border. Irish and Scottish culture should be stopped at the border. What would you do with the English culture? Would you consider that to be "native" culture? Have you ever noticed that the rich choose to live among themselves. They have their own segregated ( even gated ) "communities", that would be called Ghettos, if the people were poor instead of rich. Then you say cultures have to be "compatible to live together". But you don't say who gets to decide what is "compatible" what "values" and what "laws" are enforced. ( They would have to be enforced, otherwise the whole notion is just nonsense ) Who do you say should do the choosing and the enforcing? Who decides where people can live? Who decides how many rich people per Sq, Km should be allowed? You may not want to talk about "everyone being the same" but you have already decided that some people are "the same", i.e. belonging to one culture, and another group are the same, i.e. belonging to another culture. You simplify it to the extent that you have somehow decide that the "native" culture is one culture and that all the "immigrant" culture is one culture. How you divide culture so neatly you don't say. Can you explain how "Canadian culture" is one thing? Is there only one "Canadian culture" or do you divide it differently, maybe along the lines of "Acceptable as Canadian Culture" or Historic Canadian Culture. ( you could thereby include "French Culture", "English Culture", "Scottish Culture" etc as Canadian culture because they are acceptable or historic) You haven't explained who decides about any of that. Please do. Because if you don't, it means you are just waffling. You also have to say who decides what constitutes a "manageable intake" and what constitutes "other places". Is Alaska an "other place" in relation to Yukon? They are in different countries, as you well know. Who decides if Greenlandic culture is different from Nunavut or Newfoundland culture? You really need to work out your ideas because from what I read you have not put any basic thought into it. That is not a criticism. It is just an observation on how your culture decides things.
from my experience as a female doctor originating from an arabic country, who immigrated to an european country. I myself was born in a well educated family. I was actually raised with "Western" standards. I am not religious an I never thought of myself as an Arabic muslim person, until I get here. At the beginning, I couldn't see any difference between me and other natives. I tried hard to integrate and make friends, but I have always the feeling that I am not welcomed . I was always complaining about not finding a reason why I am treated this way. I often went home after work and cried because it made no sense for me and in the same time, I couldn't just labelled it with racism. Now after 5 years, I am sorry to say that I start looking for people from my own Country and maybe other foreigners. So I can totally understand people who come to Europe and end up living in communities.
@@confirmationbias6080 Don't worry too much. There are people all over the world who respect others. They will respect and value you and the things you wish for yourself, your family and friends. Don't be sad that some people have double standards. There are those who criticise people for "living in communities" but never complain about the rich living in rich communities. Just talk to people about the different parts of almost any city and you will see what I mean. London is a typical example. Name an area and see the stereotypical description of the inhabitants. So, it is not just you. It is because people are blind when they have a prejudice to defend. As a female doctor from and Arabic country you know the percentage of female students at universities in, for e.g., Saudi Arabia is very high. Even in Iran the number of female university students is very high. This is not the image a lot of people have of Muslim countries. I am not a Muslim. I am not defending Islam or the regimes of Muslim countries. I'm simply pointing out the facts. How people think about these facts is up to them. The main fact here is that you are a person with a good education who is in a position to do good and it is the quiet people who value you most. People who snub you or complain are trying to put themselves in the centre of things so as to get attention. Ignore them, and remember that the many quiet, dignified and patient people are the ones who truly care. I wish there was more I could do for you.
How refreshing it is to see discussions of the economics of migration that are truthful; not just fuel for fear mongering politicians and hate mongering pundits!
Bruh, the United States is full of them. They distract from the various ways our plutocracy is wrecking the country and committing atrocities by convincing folks that the Cousins fleeing adversity and actually CONTRIBUTING to our communities are somehow a problem.
I have lived in the UK where the topic of Migration has been a big one for as long as I can remember. I am curious if your conclusion about the effects of migration of the GDP in Sweden would also be reflected in the UK? I have never found out why there’s no real debate about the real issues in this complex issue that is surely one that has an impact on culture and society as much as wealth creation. Thank you.
It’s a bit disingenuous to call this the truth about migration when there isn’t just one kind of migration. Migration is an umbrella term. If truth was your main aim here, you should have spent more time distinguishing between skilled and unskilled migration, regional migration, cultural migration, as well as next generation immigrant descendants from different backgrounds and parts of the world, among other distinguishing aspects of the umbrella term. Also, as others have commented, there’s more to a nation than just economic growth, but your truth didn’t go down these politically incorrect roads, why not?
Distinguishing between the different types of migration might bring to the fore some unpleasant facts, and we can't have that. That's why the use of an umbrella term, which conveniently hides things we do not wish to confront.
To me, he seems to be addressing one type of discussion around immigration, and not the whole field of study. He probably did not discuss them because (1) it is a 15 min youtube video, and (2) the professor is just the guest on the channel. A youtube video could not summarize a topic that is so complex and cover everything you need to know in the field...
Libya has indeed faced significant turmoil over the past decade due to internal conflicts and political instability, which has driven some Libyans to seek refuge abroad. However, compared to other countries experiencing similar levels of unrest, like Syria or Afghanistan, the number of Libyan refugees in Europe and other regions is relatively low. There are several reasons why fewer Libyans seek asylum abroad. Some factors include: 1. Strong Ties to Homeland: Many Libyans are deeply rooted in their land and culture, which can make leaving a difficult decision. 2. Internal Displacement: Many people affected by conflict in Libya may choose to move within the country rather than seeking asylum abroad. 3. Migration Challenges: It can be more difficult for Libyans to reach Europe or other places that offer asylum, compared to refugees from countries geographically closer to asylum destinations.
As a Swede living in Ukraine I must disagree that "ALL" immigration is a benefit. Here there is a big difference having some western immigrants or russians with guns. Just saying.
@thomasvilhar7529 Which "Russians" with pistols are you talking about? And Russians and Ukrainians are both European groups and culturally pretty much the same! Especially from the perspective of Western Europeans, I can guarantee you that! As a Central European, I have millions of Russians and Ukrainians in my country than 100,000 Arabs or other non-Europeans.
@@bertrecht913 Me too, in Finland. Even though Russia is our archenemy, I´d rather have them immigrating here than non-Europeans, especially muslims. Most Russians who live here integrate well. The ones I know personally from work etc. are nice people who respect our culture.
You might not like Putin, but that doesn't mean that Russian immigrants are especially problematic. I know a Russian immigrant. Fine person, pays their taxes, doesn't commit crime, all good.
Identity could be considered one of the most important assets a country has, and many countries are giving it up to keep up the wealth on paper. In the end these countries will have neither. Even if the case was to be made that migrants are a net benefit in every single possible category, the point remains they will not turn their host country into a richer version of itself, they will change what their cultural country is. Immigration only works incrementally, or with countries that share a similar culture. You can look to the US as an example. It's just 50 third-world countries in a trenchcoat. No common community, no coherent culture outside of business interests, just a multitude of small communities that are either strangers, or sometimes even hate each other. In many ways this video is as if the weather was freezing rain and someone told you "no, don't wear your coat, it isn't snowing"
Brilliant. And from the informative comments one can acknowledge that the more you know about the situation the better we can cope with everything, politics and economics. We need this more than ever!
I hear what you're trying to say from an economic view point. But there's a costs happening to societies that can't be measured like this. And unfortunately it's the next generation that will pay the price. Many said covid helped kill product globalisation. But now we have human globalisation.
I watch so many UA-cam channels for various subjects: philosophy, sports, fitness and basketball, finance, etc. This UA-cam channel is one of the most pleasant surprises this year. Thank you
It's really surprising to me that I've never heard of this perspective to migration. To me, it has always been kind of natural, but I couldn't have put it into words. I'm from Germany and I know, that there are many migrant workers in the cities around me, really contributing to our society. Still, when you listen to politicians, you only hear about them "leeching" off our wealth or kindness. Great video, I'd be happy to see more!
I live in a small California town that has a lot of agriculture and a lot of tech businesses. And what I see from the migrants from the south are really hard-working people. I see people working hard, trying to make a better life for their children. And I’m not saying they’re all in agriculture, they are nurses and car mechanics. Second generation and beyond own bakeries and coffee shops. Not to mention all the fantastic Mexican food. Watching politicians and demagogues demonize these people makes me sick to my stomach.
I appreciate hearing the other side of the argument. However, unfortunately, your position is just as biased and one-sided, just as propagandist as that of the ultra nay-sayers. (1) It is misleading to present GDP figures, as those have hundreds of overarching causes unrelated to the true issue. (2) It was useful, when you showed the fraction of migrants in low-paying jobs. It proves that migrants can be useful for the economy (and they are). But why don't you also note the distribution of those migrants by the country of origin? Or by number of years lived in Sweden? (3) You have conveniently used the words "migrant" and "asylum seeker" somewhat interchangeably in the video. Should not there be some distinction? (4) Finally, it is useful that you mention the methods of measuring economic productivity of migrants used by the government are flawed. But the existence of a bad proof for a hypothesis does not make the hypothesis wrong, it in fact says nothing at all about the hypothesis, so should not be used as an argument in either direction. Now here is the TRUTH that we ACTUALLY want to know: 1) What fraction of migrants contribute to the economy (by working any job), and what fraction of migrants are just receiving benefits? 2) How is (1) affected by country of origin of migrants. Is there a statistical difference between asylum seekers and economic migrants? 3) What are the statistical effects of migration on employment rate in the country. 4) What are the effects on crime? 5) How well do these people integrate? Is there formation of clusters of non-integrated people?
Greetings from Greece. Especially the last question is very important. Never been to Sweden, i do not know your culture. But here in my country it is obvious that the vast majority of immigrants (coming from Asia and Africa) cannot integrate to our society because of vast cultural differences. They do not want to integrate and will not. On the contrary, we are forced to slowly change our culture in order to put up with theirs.
Basically, anyone can apply bias to economics. Be it pro or anti migrant since that's the focus here clearly. Logic says, "If your household is suffering, you can't afford guest. Seems too me like countries/government need to prioritize their household first.
Sweden already did that, they still have one of the highest living standards in the world, after all that immigration. Higher than the anti-immigrant Japan for example.
Yea when said guest decodes to raid your bbq, fridge, help themselves to your bedroom, clothes, tools and utilities, and you gotta pay for the extra growth in your household oh so lovely jubbly isn't it?
@@SusCalvin as long as it's the Swedish middle class, and not the Somalian underclass, at least the middle class or working class as I would call them, actually pay into the system.. I have no issue with this
What you didn't mention is that there are some cultures that pose a realistic threat if kept unchecked and one can not let in as many people of them as there is housing. I think it would be best to assimilate them first and make sure you don't get too many of them as their fertility rates are often far greater. Also I wish that the professor could have shown us some other statistics like the economic activity of migrants.I mean is it really so that there is no difference at all between earning less and being financed by the state? But overall thank you for this new view on migration.
I have to say I agree, the net impact of migration in the overall economy is positive. However, mass immigration has strong social and cultural impact in the receiving country which is not always positive and can be critical in terms of social stability, cultural and religious assimilation and crime rates. A strong controlled, coordinated system of a “filtered immigration” is therefore necessary instead of a policy of “open borders”.
What good is a successful economy when crime religious and ethinc tensions are wide spread. Id rather live a simple life then worry about violence and crime 24/7, its even worse for women of course.
@@Bell_plejdo568pMaybe stop watching msm propaganda and start doing your own research. Muslim communities immigrating into European countries is a terrible mistake "the great reset" elit thinks will just watch and do nothing... The 'peacful religion' has never been and never will be welcomed on the European continent.
The presenter appears to be living in an alternate universe where most European politicians are against mass immigration. I would like to see The Market Exit make a video about the universe where the rest of us in Europe live. In our universe, European politicians have been enthusiastic proponents of unprecedentedly high immigration. Perhaps he can explain to the viewers how Europe has become a utopia of happiness, health and prosperity as a result of mass immigration.
As a Canadian who is currently watching my community be overwhelmed by mass immigration (i.e., growth rate last year of 3.2% versus 0.5% in the US and 0.325 in Western Europe, I'm floored by the tone of the so-called expert and the presenter. The tone is smug - as in "We know better, and actually Sweden could even accept more migrants from cultures completely different than our own etc. In no way do I trust their figures, and I've seen and heard too much about the decline of Sweden's quality of life in urban centers to believe anything these two have to say. I was utterly disgusted to see the figures they were proudly presenting regarding X% of bus drivers are immigrants, and Y% of cleaners are immigrants. Why not properly pay people within your own community/nation to do these jobs? You are a mouth-piece for forces undoing Swedish soceity.
The plan of the great reset (the new name for the new world order) has been planned and implemented for many many years.. European countries and the whole Western civilisation MUST BE DILUTED.
According to the great plan of the "great reset" every single step, each and every move around the globe, - including the wars in the middle east then migrating those who suffer from the wars and placing the immigrants/rfuggeees into western countries, - each step had been carefully planned.. and precisely implemented.. 😢
Amazingly shortsighted views, taking into account "economic effects" only, when cultural and societal effects are the most important part of the story...
I don't know, the points you share are really interesting, but this doesn't really debunk many of the popular downsides of migrantion, like for example, job competition, crime, and many others, just shows another perspective.
It's a special kind of stupidity, where someone thinks GDP growth is the ultimate goal in a society, and not the integrity of the people, land and culture.
@@maksimfedoryak that is reductive. There are greedheads, but also there are elites in some places who are tied to the land. Benevolence does exist, and automatic beliefs (all politicians are corrupt, the police are brutal, businessmen are profiteering, doctors want to keep you sick) and mean world syndrome in general is a distraction at best.
Integrity of people improves when the economy thrives. Integrity of land? Do you mean environmental regulations. If so yea that's definitely more important but can still be pursued along with gdp growth. Integrity of culture? Not sure what that even means, culture will stick around and develop automatically regardless cause that's how culture works. Not something we really need to focus on
It's highly important to watch and learn about different viewpoints on a topic, especially the ones you disagree with. You can't have a proper discussion about something if you dont know what your talking about, and if you dont know what the opposing viewpoint actually is *you literally dont know what you're talking about*
It sounds like the boost in GDP came from government spending, if the migrants were of a benefit to the country then you would expect there to be little inflation from this expansion of this money supply. So all Swedes would have to do to fact check this video is go food shopping.
Yeah, just totally lump together every migrant in the foreign born category since there is really no difference between a migrant from an EU member state from Eastern Europe and an Afgan, we see what you did there.
Here in Canada we have a severe affordable housing shortage, and hospital emergency rooms closing periodically due to a shortage of overwhelmed nurses. Many nurses have left for the US for the sake of their sanity. Although the better paying jobs and a lower cost of living didn’t hurt. Bottom line, we let in more people than we had the infrastructure to support. Immigration needs to be directly related to the needs of employers. Those are the immigrants that improve an economy. Unskilled immigrants are great for filling fast food jobs, but once those positions are staffed, the remainder are a burden.
Because neighboring nations like Egypt or Sudan are in dire economic straights at best and at worst in active civil wars. Sweden also had attractive policies vs some other Euro nations (though if I were used to the climate of N. Africa or the near east, I would not want to move to a climate like Sweden's lol)
@cryplots2815 I'm well aware of how bad it is. They have a massive overpopulation problem in the Nile River valley where 97% of their population lives, to the point they are embarking on massive city building projects to releive the issues in Cairo. Add, what, a a million refugees to that? It would only exacerbate it. And this is besides the point - why should people who have lived there for generations have to move? Without a guarantee they can return, it is just effectively ethnic cleansing of the area.
a country has no responsibility to immigrants. The example isnt fair to compare women, cleaner etc. If you see it like the way you explain, you can take the whole world and dont see a problem
looks like paid video. down shift from thinking and research to playing concepts. simplest.-foreign born VS emigrants out of EU. timeline of benefits VS not good not time sensitive to you. England, Dutch time including research not mentioned- there are no benefit. you suck this time
I believe the Swedish government is afraid that there will be a mass exodus of young, skilled Swedes leaving in search of a safer place to raise children. These types of videos are a "don't worry, everything's going to be okay" message. Given how bad things are there now, I wouldn't want to even go there on holiday, let alone raise a family there.
@@caravanlifenz I dunno where you're from, but I feel perfectly safe in Sweden. Media does what media does and inflate the issues we have and it looks very dramatic. But if you actually live here, you'll see that there's not much going on in your everyday life.
Why didn’t he look at crime rate, how many immigrants are admitted to the hospitals? How many are using social services? How many crimes are due to immigrants? How many migrants are going to court? How many of those that go to court need public defenders (if that’s a thing there)?
I use to visit my Swedish girlfriend before they opened their borders to everyone and his horse. It was a great country. I visited it a couple of years ago and it was a complete toilet.
I'm sorry, but the whole narrative of the video is wrong. The only reason for mass migration was PURELY ECONOMICAL. There was a wide consens that migration is needed, from the left to conservatives, the only people that disageed were far-right parties. The reason why the tone has changed, is the cultural and societial consequences of migration, and to be more specific: islamic migration. While most muslims are still a win for their countries, there is a lot of problems with a considerable part, who don't want to learn the language or adapt to the culture. Doesn't really matter at what european crime statitics you look, when it comes to violent crime like rape, the majority of the criminals are muslims, although being mostly single digit percentages of the respective countries. This is the whole issue. So acting like it's a big surprise that migrants are generally an economical win is just dishonest. That has been know for decades. But that's not the reason why migration has faced so much criticism in the last years. The left has downplayed the problems for years and now the far right is surging everywhere. Racism is wrong and shouldn't be supported, but to act as if as everything is alright just helps the racists win election. And don't play number games like "the crime stats are pretty much the same" 1) The have been falling for a long time now. That they are no longer falling is a trend reversal. 2) The crime stats that are really important are violent crimes like rape, murder and so on. Nobody gives a fuck if someone steals gum from the supermarket.
@@Knight766Islam is strongly associated with non-white or non-Western ethnicities. Which is why Islamophobia is often referred to as a form of racism.
I lived in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, and did not speak the language. I associated with other white ex-pats far more than the local population. Many of my values were different to the average Indonesian while others were the same. Are you saying that my life in Indonesia was bad for their country? Or does this only apply when non-Westerners immigrate to Western countries? I grew up in multiple cultures but Indonesia was the only one without English as an official language. Interestingly, living in the USA was just as much a cultural shock as any place I lived in Southeast Asia.
The crime statistics, even if they have increased, need to be looked at with nuance. Correlation does not equal causation and may not be associated with immigration or may not be associated with it to the degree or in the way you believe. One nuance to consider is that criminals are often most likely to commit crimes against people from their own cultures, so often the people least likely to be affected by any possible crimes by migrants are the locals. There are many myths associated with immigration and crime. Internationally, immigration largely does not increase crime rates, including violent crimes and the only associations occur in very specific circumstances. These circumstances often involve the conditions within the host country. Broadly, immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born people and this gap is especially large for undocumented immigrants. Regardless, in most places around the world, there are very stubborn beliefs that immigrants from certain ethnic groups commit crimes at higher rates than locals even when the data shows the opposite. Do not underestimate the ability of out-group hostility and in-group favouritism to colour the way we see the world. Politicians and media outlets will take advantage of this human tendency to further their success or gain a larger audience with no respect for the truth, let alone the consequences.
Hi Andres, thank you very much for HQ work. Lack of "real human" resources on one side and "cultural war" as real cost on the other side....and none of these can be solved with money. Therefore....It seems to me...that we as Europeans aren't as smart as we over-valuated ourselves to be.... Further no matter how the factual truth ughly is, abased on our experience, we must admit when learning from our mistakes that migration MUST be strictly selective and democratic system MUST finally and once for ever solve paradox of toleration towards non-democratic ideolgoies. After we are done with these....EU might finally move on...and go through BIIIIIG reconciliaton...
It's funny, here in the United States the politically incorrect narrative is to say that immigration on a massive scale is a bad idea. You mentioned some statistics on foreign-born unemployment rates, but what have the native-born unemployment rates been? Low wages that immigrants are willing to accept can cause a negative pricing incentive and puts the people that have been creating that economy out of the picture. Its like growing a massive oak, then chopping it at the base and grafting a sapling onto the stump...
For what it's worth, Europeans are a lot more centrist than Americans think they are. Criticizing immigration is politically incorrect but like the US the left perpetuates the myth that the right has complete control the narrative at a national level.
It is also important to notice what is the general culture of the country where immigrants are moving, I live in Finland and for foreigners it’s very hard to integrate into society because jobs would rather hire Finns instead of foreigners, even if the foreigner is fluent in Finnish…
As Swede this was painful to listen to. Very much a far left interpretation of events in Sweden. 1:55: Of course they don't mention this a period of massive money supply expansion fueling the housing bubble, and low interest. Which of course boosts the economy at cost, a cost they are pretending Swedes aren't paying today. 10:20 Substitution doesn't imply a necessity. It makes Sweden larger, but even smaller nation like Denmark or Ice land can be just as fine.
Yeah came from how money works and this is utterly rarted. Most of it is outright false and I have a lower opinion of how money works now than before I clicked on it.
I'm from Turkey and my country has been a home for at least 14 million immigrants since the Erdoğan government declared war on Syria in 2014. Hearing prof. Hansen opened up new visions in my mind regarding the immigration issue. Yes, immigrants indeed can enhance the working power in a country. But in a country such as Turkey, where corruption is very high, immigrants are considered cheap labor, making it hard for the unions to negotiate and allowing workers' wages to go way, way down.
Very good and balanced video. Interesting and thought prvoking and always nice to have a counter argument ready when someone says 'immigration is bad...' To show my appreciation I have subscribed. Thank you
This video is so badly informed. GDP is the not the concern here! People need to look into the finer details, the statistics are hiding more important truths
The audacity for you to title this video “the politically incorrect views on migration” without any attempt to address the elephant in the room - migration from certain countries or specific groups of immigrants…. Those are the ones causing havoc in Europe or the Western world in general.
I have recently discovered your channel. On the whole, your vids are stimulating, intelligent and fair. This one, however, strikes me as dishonest . . . as if you are trying to make us all, yourself included, swallow an untruth. Yet, as I have said, you're work is stimulating, intelligent and fair for the most part, so I'll carry on watching. I appreciate the hard work you put into these vids. Thanks from the UK.
There is no justification for mass migration. Nations are as old as the Bible. People who shared a common identity always lived together. Identity is origin. There is no reason for mixed races. There is no reason for mass migration. There is no reason why people of different identities should live together.
If nations are as old as Bible, they aren't really old lmao. And mixed race people have always existed. There is a telltale sign of the same in anthropological history of man. These are bad arguments
During the early modern period, they had to beat the peasants until they understood that they were part of a nation. Sweden was a patchwork of territories with different laws. People who wants to protect tribal culture always make me suspicious. Like they dream of a world where they can boss me around.
This is some pathetic propaganda. You say you are a swede and that its not about "finances" but what effect has this flood of immigration had on the Swedish people? Population increases show good GDP on paper, because it is an easily exploitable formula, that is meaningless for most things economic.
You complain about politicians' one-sided view on immigration, yet both of you provide another one-sided view, just that it's another side? How ironic and biased of you.
Many comments express concern that immigration has led to a surge in crime in Sweden. This suprises me, because the data does not support that concern. Crime rates (number of reported crimes) have either decreased or remained stable over time in Sweden.* During the same period, the population has increased, which means that the crime rate has decreased. Equally important, the rate of lethal violence has decreased over time. It was higher in the early 1990s.** Considering that the population in the early 1990s was 8.5 million and today it's 10 million, the decrease appears even more significant. It concerns me that so many seem to have been misled about the state of crime in Sweden.
I also know many of you commented before watching the whole video. That’s too bad because if you watch it all the way through, you'll see that the professor's views on migration is quite nuanced.
Anyways, thanks for watching and commenting -- cheers!
* See offial statistics at bra.se/statistik/kriminalstatistik/anmalda-brott.html
** See official statistics at bra.se/download/18.62c6cfa2166eca5d70e1dc50/1615395172351/2019_6_Dodligt_vald_i_Sverige_1990_2017.pdf
This is not true. Please stop misleading your viewers.
You’re a bare faced liar. Who is paying you?
@@kammaral1 Kammaral, on what data or statistics are you basing that allegation?
@@TheMarketExit I replied to your pinned comment three times and none of them have been published. You'll find the information in those comments.
That's strange. Did the comments include links? In that case maybe UA-cam's filter restricted them. Let's do this: If you email me your comment with the information, I can post it here so people can see it. hello@andresacevedo.com Cheers!
We need to stop looking at GDP. I am Irish and the GDP in Ireland grew tremendously during my early working years, much better than my parents time, but I am worse off than them yet more educated and with a "better" job than they had. GDP is only a good measure for wealthy people (home owners, business owners who can employ cheap labour/not deal with labour laws etc). What is wrong with being more like Japan, a degrowth/stagnant economy? It makes no difference to me if my pay increases but the price of everything else increases, in Japan they protest over a change in price!
From an American, I absolutely agree that this is the case you would think that Americans are the richest people in the world while in reality we have less than our parents and are getting poor by the day. If you want to mirror the economic system of the United States don’t. Everything that’s been done since the early 1970s in the United States, including international trade has worked to undermine the position of US workers and the general population. Well making the top one percent exceedingly rich we have more billionaires than any other country and our people and their living conditions are drastically going down year by year. Not taxing the rich while printing Fiat money is a recipe for inequality because the Fiat money distributed into the economy always goes back to the rich because they own all the companies where the money is being spent and they can avoid taxation so there’s no way to get it back from them to distribute to anyone. And yet the government will continue redistributing from everyone via Fiat money when you print the money, what you are doing is inflating the value of the currency , and deluding the buying which is held by the rich and poor the poor have less buying power to spend, and even though the rich due to the other recipients of the income at a larger proportion so they will always get disproportionately rich well all money is diluted the poor become poor and become richer because they are the recipient of the . The idea that England is almost as poor as Mississippi is ridiculous. If you were to remove the top 1% and look at GDP in the United States it would drastically fall. I have never heard of an American that lived in Europe or currently lives in Europe, that thought life was not better in Europe than it was in the United States at least materially, as far as having money left over at the end of the month and the cost of housing. I’m not saying I would want to live in Europe because most of the countries are tyrannical in their very nature and this could be seen during Covid the Austrians are no less Nazi today than they ever were. Unfortunately American capitalism is a shit show. Scam held up by the petrodollar and by externalizing inflation by getting everyone to use the dollar by loaning out massive amounts of it and debt that have to be repaid in dollars and other similar schemes. Of course, all other countries do this as well, so I don’t feel bad For the people to whom it is externalized because they are just trying to avoid even worse local currencies that do the same thing.
@SeanAustace-zk3mc your points make a lot of sense but believe me- the situation is much worse in other regions of world today. In India, we are having impressive growth rate, massive FDI and GDP has grown tremendously during these years but the wealth gap has become worst. I feel quite amazed when I hear that another Indian made it to Forbes list while 60 % of population has to be provided with basic necessities by government. I do think that Europeans have a better condition than USA. My friend who has been to both places told me about importance of leisure in life of a European but still many European economies are also facing crisis these days. It's time of Global Recession followed by wars which have made us economically worse.
@@sarikamishra1897 even before I knew the details, years ago I once said to an acquaintance of mine that one particular neighbour of India was generally richer than India. My theory was that India had around 100 billionaires while that country had none, and its GDP was a bit lower than India's. So wouldn't that country's common people have more wealth than India's? Also a lot of this talk about GDP growth is mere numbers connected to stock price of companies that may go down or even vanish later.
GDP to jest oszustwo! Propaganda nowej kasty korporacyjnych gigantów nie płacących żadnych podatków i posiadających niewolników. Czyli Nas!
The very moment an economist says GDP, I stop listening. It's propaganda.
Romanian here. I must say that they misrepresented the story about our health care system. Although there is no denial that Romania suffers from a brain/workforce drain, that is NOT the real reason why many patients were sent abroad for treatment. It is endemic corruption. Nurses and doctors couldn't work properly due bad conditions in hospitals, drug shortages, and last not but least mismanagement.
@@TB-zb8jw are you an AI bot? You claim this vague "business with burn units" ?!?!? and also talk about yourself as "someone who studies economics" -that's weirdly unspecific. You say the video and people in it "say nothing," while not saying anything yourself, except maybe things in Romania would be the same, even with "communist torture"(does this mean being bored to death listening to a Western European Communist? Isn't that a Monty Python skit?)
I agree that the situation in Romania was misrepresented!
What they don't mention is that the problem with uncontrolled migration is not economic but cultural!!! And this is the area which should receive more attention! It is well k own that Western countries have prospered, but... guess what, so did Romania, despite the 3 million people leaving ( I think this is too big a number, but it is irrelevant)
Romania has prospered because we don't have an authoritarian regime... anymore!!!!
the real problem with the romanian healthcare system is that patients are worthless, treated as animals and let to die (this has been fact way before covid) unless you have money for spaga (bribery). Every romanian knows you have a better chance of dying going into the hospital even from a routine procedure if you don't have the money to pay a bribery to all, doctors, nurses everyone in the system that you interact with. Not to mention in the emergency rooms, they literally step over their bodies and let them die (as if they aren't there) when they don't offer bribery.
You completely missed an entire social aspect on immigration. How will the long term culture in Sweden change as a result of these immigrants? How are the immigrants being assimilated into the Swedish culture? You need to redo this essay and take broader aspects of mass immigration into account.
I have found that economists typically view people as labour units instead of having nuanced cultures . Economists just see people as numbers on their balance sheets instesd of humans who have to live with each other. That immigrants often work for less than natives, their presence is an incentive to natives to accept less. Natives see that as a negative, but Economists see that as a positive.
How about atheist/agnostic arabs and africans seeking a culture that aligns with their beliefs and values? I'm an agnostic Moroccan and I don't feel safe or home in my home country
@@cinnamonroll8473Atheist Arabs are an astronomical minority in the make up of immigrants that have moved to Scandinavia from 2015 to 2024 from countries like Syria, Irak, Afghanistan, Libanon etc.
This is not the 1970’s and Iranians fleeing an islamic totalitarian regime.
Religious beliefs, or lack there of, aside the cultures are extremely different from one another - down to very minute things such as keeping your apartment clean, not disturbing your neighbors or people out in public, not respecting or being highly skeptical of the police or other government authorities etc.
It’s a non compatible relationship between these two cultures, and Scandinavians have grown extremely tired of it.
@chris_noswe I was talking about highly educated, respectful and agnostic arabs. These are the minorities that suffer in their own countries because who they are is so incompatible with their environment. These are who, in my opinion, should flee their Islamic oppressive backward surroundings. And no, you are mistaken, it is dangerous to openly express that you are not a muslim in islamic countries.
we will be like lebanon.
Incoming people from How Money Works
yes ans this video is terrible propaganda
@@buckyfanksy Not really. Watch the entire video and you'll see that the video also mentions how devastating immigration can be. The video is NOT on how good immigration is and that it's something amazing. The video is about there are both good and bad to it, just like how there is to every single thing. The video just contains examples of the good AND the bad
@@dragomon2 yeah its surprisingly balanced
@@dragomon2 It is propaganda, becouse:
1.Use GDP not GDP per capita PPP.
2. Made one group from all non-citizens (There is diffrence between EU origin non citizens and refugeees from middle east),
3. Do not calculate whole life impact at state budget, only look at it they work (Denmark calculate it end for middle eastern people it is negative).
@@dragomon2bro just made one statement about how migration puts pressure on the housing market, schools policing, etc. and spent the remaining 13 minutes praising it.
And what actually bothers most people is cultural issues; the claim the migrants from certain communities make zero effort into integrating.
As a migrant brit I find that the politicians who are willing to have an honest discussion about migration aside from nigel farage (dude who led the brexit party, which was a bad decision in retrospect) tend to be those of colour.
In my experience, a growing economy due to migration does not translate to a better standard of living for the population of the target country. I'm a Romanian migrant to Canada, a country with massive immigration. The standard of living has continuously dropped in Canada in the last 25 years, since I moved here. The health care system and housing affordability have both collapsed. In contrast, the standard of living has continuously improved in Romania, especially after it joined the EU. For young people, Romania is now a better country to live than Canada. Unfortunately it has also become a country with net positive migration for the first time in 2023.
And Romania is much safer than most Western European countries now.
I'm confused by your last sentence ("Unfortunately it has also become a country with net positive migration for the first time in 2023.").
In that time the economies of the US and Canada have gone all in on trickle down, and austerity, cutting those programs to the bone.
Capital deepening is the improvement of goods and services, while capital broadening an increase of supply.
@@gintasvilkelis2544it likely means that the immigrant are not ethnic romanians, and/or low-qualification workers, which displeases the dude.
Cause otherwise immigration is not inheritly bad for the economy. Look at the whole fricking US history for starters.
The question is not how many foreign workers you have doing whatever jobs. The real question is why can't you self-populate your own country with enough people to sustain and grow your economy and country ? Why do your young people lack the hope, trust, confidence, and faith in your society that would encourage them to marry and have children ?
Is not hope or any of that U mentioned. Is porn addiction, huge ego and selfish generation of unable to connect and see other people's worth from anything different than Money or status..me European Youngsters DO NOT ÑOVE ANYONE' but them selves and their social media status ❤
The last person that encouraged its people to marry and have kids by offering loans with almost no interest and simultaneously tried to get rid of foreign people that were ruining his country was attacked by a certain group of people…he even helped the people go to another land just like England did
@@pietrog9055 You got me curious, but I, frankly, am at a complete loss whom you were referring to. Was this is Sweden?
@@gintasvilkelis2544 it was in Germany marriage loans ..he also worked with Zionists to ship people to Palestine. Look up Havaara agreement…. He brought hope to the German people after WW1 and got them out of economic despair.
This is a very good question that is mostly answered by a culture War. If I remember correctly in sociology, wealthy Nations tend to have lower birth rates. It has nothing to do with hopes and dreams and stuff like that, or perhaps yes the more you have the more you want and the more that costs, and you don't want to have to share with little kid. Where I live, they say that the child will cost you about a half a million bucks by the time it's 18
Why was economic growth the chosen metric to evaluate the impact of immigration? You didn't mention other important factors like the GINI coefficient, which measures inequality. A March 2023 article in The Lancet reported that Sweden now ranks last among Nordic countries in this regard. Over the past decade, Sweden's GINI coefficient has risen from the mid-20s to the mid-30s, indicating growing inequality. While the wealthy benefit from cheaper labor, this deepens societal divides. Migrants are often exploited, and the average Swede faces worsening economic conditions. Shouldn't we consider the broader social costs as well?
This is interesting. Would like to see him address this. However Sweden did a lot of things that cause inequality in this period, liberalized the economy reduced social spending privatized a bunch of stuff etc so not sure you can attribute the rise in inequality just to migration. You say that had there not been cheap labour available these inequality causing policies would not have had the same effect? It is an interesting topic
@@sjg9887 The same could be said of economic growth.
I don't care if a few Swedish billionaires get more money from cheap labour if hundreds of thousands of Afghans get to live a better life
But that isnt an issue with refugees themselves. It's a problem with capitalism, exploiting cheap labour to redistribute wealth to capitalists. The govt. shouldn't allow that to happen. Allow migrants and existing citizens to keep a greater fraction of the wealth they generate together. Aid the wealth distribution downwards through taxation, worker unions, minimum wage caps etc.
This is very relevant and will be an interesting case to follow as the immigration has brought in "cheap" labor that I'd like to see over time they can experience the social mobility that Sweden has been known for
I don't think the cost/burden analysis is correct. It should be about lifetime value of a person to a society. Do you make more in taxes than you take in benefits? A cleaner could easily earn more than what was put into his or her education and healthcare etc. A casino manager can not just cost more to the society, but also destroy wealth by getting people addicted to gambling and destroying their lives. I did not think this was a good comparison at all.
Plus you should really also mention the political tendency of capital to push for cheap labor immigration to pump up their profits. Less cheap immigration would mean higher wages as companies are forced to pay higher prices for labor.
The real story in the West during the past few years seems to be growth of wealth disparity. Middle class is disappearing. Good jobs are harder to get, but stock market growth is higher than ever in history. Low cost labor immigration feeds directly into exacerbating this phenomenon.
Spot on. Housing and wages are major costs but coincidentally they correlate positively with GDP while the working population gets stiffed with the externalities (cost/bills). There's also cultural factors that are hard to quantify: peace of mind, community, alienation...
There's a study out of California recently that puts the depression of wages due to immigration at 15%. Quite significant. I think anyone could use a solid 15% more in their pocket.
Lifelong care for rape victims isn't cheap either but it sure does increase gdp.
Also, we don't know who they considered in their "immigrant" category. That term includes Americans who work in software for example who then skew the data due to their disproportionately high impactdie to high salaries. So this isn't as obvious as they may seem to want.
Also, not everything is always about economics. People just don't want to deal with it and complicate things or have tiring debates, and the for sure don't appreciate no go zones or hand grenade attacks. Who gives af whether Sweden grew more? Useless anyways since that money was pocketed by the bosses, not the average Joe. You think Gunnar the Plumber got a 4.5% raise?
Also who said there's a correlation with these Syrian Doctors and engineers? Couldve been policy changes or a change in how they measure growth, or a bunch of productive Finns coming in. More people more economic activity, duuuhhh. Do we need professors to see the correlation?
The angle is to take down the argument that immigration is a burden from a cost perspective and how this phenomena is talked about. Immigration adds to the economy and not the opposite which has been the narrative. Society needs hands and not an overvalued never ending flow of digital symbols with no actual worth.
England for instance has problems finding people for farming since Brexit and the new restricted policys for immigration. There is a shortage of labour everywhere in a lot of sectors, both private and public. Why is that when there is so much money out there?
And the Stockmarket, how does immigration play a part of keeping wages down on a company like Volvo you mean? They are all pretty well paid. Or other companies like that. These companies benefits if anything from cheap labour and not so good regulations abroad. But these companies can't pay bad wages in Sweden.
If companies on the stockmarket wants to reduce costs in order to make more profit, that hits everyone.
Companies on the stockmarket taking advantage of peoples disadvantages of being newcomers exist absolutely. But that is not a problem of immigration itself. Why is Amazon aloud to exploit workers like they do in the US? Cause they can due to lack of regulations and unions not being able to put pressure on these companies for different reasons. And who benefits from that? J.B!
Swedens birthrate is 1,42. Rest of Europe worse. Since you need a birthrate of 2,1 to sustain the population which is the very fundament that the society and economy relies on, we should ask ourself, ok how do we make this work? Instead we have been focusing on costs that didn't exist in the way they were presented by experts and media. Not the benefits.
There is a need for another narrative to be told here. A unifying collective one.
The neoliberal agenda where immigrants are made scapegoats will not be the answer if you want to see changes that benefits everyone except from the very rich.
The labor unions here in Sweden are insanely powerful. You basically can't get a job without talking to one, and they will not let you start working if you agreed to a lower wage than your peers, and given that almost no where accepts cash in the country anymore, there aren't many "under the table" jobs around. Proper labor protections can help offset that particular downside.
Not really. If your only metric is stock price/growth - you incentivised to do whatever to achieve that. Cutting costs, optimizing business structure, offshore everything etc.
The benefits that an immigrant receives are not just public services and handouts. They enjoy reliable electricity supplies, roads, bridges, dams, water and power distribution networks, education, telecommunications, health and welfare systems, that have taken the native population generations to build. Immigrants crowd up everything.
Immigrants contribute to the need for still more infrastructure, that everyone has to pay for, not just the newcomers that make it necessary,
The English version of the linked bra statistics se page states: "Up until a few years ago, Sweden was counted among the European countries with relatively low levels of homicide. However, the homicide rate has increased in Sweden, and is now higher than that of many other countries. The increase in Sweden is primarily linked to an increase in gun violence."
So the official statistics organisation flatly contradicts you. People who adhere to a violent, xenophobic, and misogynistic ideology commit violent crime. Especially the males.
And that is ignoring the costs from housing pressure, on healthcare from inbreeding, also a part of their ideology, and the pressure on social services, and the general loss of safety in public spaces.
so tru
Just because it has increased, that doesn’t mean it’s high. And like you said, people who commit violent crimes are usually men. Specifically, men between the ages of 18 and 24. Should we do something against that group?
Man just say it directly. Stop hiding behind these polite words. Just say that you hate black and brown people. Just say that you think they are savages. Just admit it. Just admit that you're bigoted person.
I appreciate the nuance you’re trying to bring to the immigration issue, but this is a topic that would take literal hours to even try to dissect fully. There are far more reasons local populations don’t want immigration beyond just the economy, in Canada for instance there is a severe lack of housing, a “real” constraint; so when immigration quotas go up, it severely hurts renters and takes stock out of the housing market that is badly needed. There are cultural issues as well. Very few people who live in a certain area with a certain culture will be overjoyed by a huge group of newcomers who all cling together, refuse to speak the new local language, and carry with them the baggage of a culture that isn’t congruous with their new surroundings. These are very real issues, and to ignore those in lieu of other brighter parts of immigration happens at our own peril, because they must be taken into account when discussing this topic.
Agreed, but also he didn't go into how the immigration would help the countries with a demographic crisis due to low birth like Spain. Or how not all immigration is the same i.e. all of latin america having closwr cultural ties to spain portugal and italy and their impact when moving to the EU
Building new houses at record profits adds to GDP but only really benefits those with the financial capital to invest
It’s funny because westerners have done worse in their countries. 😂 getting a small tastes of your own medicine 💊
Housing isn't supposed to be a finite resource that acts like a source of rent seeking to the landlord class. Stop pretending as it is to rationalize your racists arguments. Plenty of data actually proving immigration (legal or illegal) is a net positive, and immigrants commit crimes at less the rate than citizens.
It takes time. No national identity exists in a vacuum. Immigration is an old story, and your country is definitely benefiting from it (as a whole), even if some people aren’t receiving those rewards themselves. Just… just don’t do the same Nazi/ Jim Crow shit. We’ve seen that game. It’s a stupid. Do it better somehow
I think the basic thesis is correct. The constraint is Real resources vs Financial resources. However, Real resources also includes intangible things like goodwill from the host population and this can be depleted at different rates depending on a particular immigrants background or the govt gaslighting the population when legitimate complaints are raised regarding some of the negatives of mass immigration.
Also financial resources are a constraint when you take into consideration the current corrupt spending model where politically connected businesses get lucrative contracts to provide migrant services, so they spend printed money first and everyone else loses through higher than otherwise inflation.
Hmm, I would lie if I said that I didn't think your comment probably may have some truth to it.
Interesting comment
It's not just the government gaslighting the population, it's channels like this too which point to crime statistics and then try to tell you that what you're seeing in them isn't true.
Precise. Well-articulated.
Wow.
The video makes an extraordinary claim about Sweden's economy that anyone can check to be false. So, Google "Sweden GDP per capita". What you get is a curve that shows number of about $60k in 2014 (so before the refugee crisis) and that it has yet (so up to the latest data there, 2022) recovered to that level.
In fact in 2015 it had a biggest drop of GDP per capita except for 2009 (the great recession).
Why would you the professor of economics make such an easily verifiable false claim?
oh the GDP would totally grow when housing prices inflate but the economic condition of the people is actually worse as they can't get housing and/or have to sacrifice alot to get housing. GDP growth number is only good for the wealthy who own most of the economy not the average person.
Right. Canada's housing crisis for example
@@neiltalbert7091 whole world crisis, this is happening everywhere as people age and their retirement management move their assets to real state.
@@neiltalbert7091 also Australia and Ireland
Yep, basically the main point that this video pointedly ignored, then made up some nonsensical argument for their opposition. I would also like to mention that the economic benefits the video mentions are almost all government spending and won't hold up in the longer term, though the economy will still grow due to the number of people contributing to it, so it's hard to say if it's even good for the rich.
@@ethanwilliams1880exactly! This dude just said economic activity increased due to GOVERNMENT SPENDING, dafuq……why not just return the excess tax money to the payers?
Property owners benefit from high rates of migration because it keeps rents & occupancy rates high.
The rest of the public lose out because of the increased load on infrastructure & services.
Low stable rates of migration are what’s needed, this allows proper integration education of new migrants & gives time to develop infrastructure & services.
What ever, but uncontrolled emigration is heavy burden to any country.
Moneylending and landlording, the two major leeches in the economy.
@@fiqhonomics Yes. Bankers own most of everything, especially businesses here in the U.S. The debt is serviced by squeezing out as much profit as possible usually resulting in lay offs.
Yes, it drives up rents and housing cost for everyone so yes, landlords benefit and people looking for housing have to pay higher prices. In labor markets, the supply and demand works on similar levels where an influx of new labor drives down the overall cost of labor a benefit to the companies, but not the workers are the majority living in the society and therefore it is a net negative to most people living in the society only a positive for the business owners. It is why business owners favor immigration, where the general population of workers do not because it is against them , it drives their housing cost up and drives their labor value down while the wealthy benefit on both ends. Basic supply and demand economics no one was arguing against this. You’re spinning it. They were talking about these people commit that you’re pretending they didn’t commit.
Building more houses increases the economy, and increasing investment in infrastructure also benefits the econmy. You're grasping for issues.
The Swedish Central Bureau of Statictics (Statistikmyndigheten) is clear on the subject. Employment rate amongst foreign born in Sweden is lower than among the native born. That's not surprising, not controversial, yet very important in the discussion and crucially - something you can't learn from the video titled "The truth about mass migration"
According to the stats report called "Different labour market opportunities for native and foreign born" (in year 2021):
Employment rate (with higher education): 80.7% (foreign) vs 90.9% (native)
Employment rate (with lower secondary education): 49% (foreign) vs 67.9% (native)
@TheMarketExit You chose to include a less relevant statistic painting completely different picture. If you wondered why we can't have an honest discussion about this topic, this is because everyone speaking up has an agenda - including you.
having read true the comment section here. its to high quality for this guy to have "a bad agenda" i would guess he is still bound to the propaganda of our time, not quite ready to truly accknowlage reality. he was told all his life immigrants are great, you are a moster of you dont like them. there is only so much reality his mind can take at a time. immigration is obviously only negative. but its hard to say that for someone inside current society. its like saying god is fake, for a 12th century pessant. this guy migth represent the left starting to get back to reality, its just taking them a while. atleast, thats what this comment section is telling me. its full of "racist demons" while the guy himself clerly comes from a pro " equality " background
Why should the swedish people share their country with other countries. The swedes will never be welcomed to Iran or egypt and keeping swedish culture christian or atheist, women or gays
The economy can grow more rapidly while also inequality becomes worse, the rich get richer and the middle and lower classes suffer the consequences. You can't just look at one metric and say "mass migration actually helped the economy".
it might actually be better than the place they migrated from !
The money that is being 'spent out' is coming from where? Of course, more money flowing in the economy shows 'growth'. Growth in what areas and how productive is it? What about the costs in housing, health care and schooling etc? Crime is a cost both socially and economically. Young highly educated Swedes are leaving in droves, why? They are being replaced with largely uneducated migrants. This is an economic cost, isn't it? When that professors protected job is replaced by a migrant, I will start listening to him.
No one told them to hire the immigrant over the nurse. That is more of an internal issue your people need to fight to guarantee locals get job priority. It is not the immigrants' fault. They did not hire themselves.
@@possiblestupidideas8544 In Malta, where one-third of employees are immigrants, the locals get job priority over others and this is not enforced by any law, it happens automatically.
When you have an adult immigrant who works as a doctor, nurse, or cleaner, their home country provided their education, not yours. They contribute to the economy by working, consuming, and paying taxes.
Not every adult immigrant works as a doctor, nurse, or cleaner.
And them acting like the reason we are all suffering thru mass migration is because we needed some medical people is bs. If there is a job not filled by a citizen, there is probably a problem with that job. There is a reason there are so many slinging meat on the sidewalks- there r no jobs. Please tell me 1 job an illegal immigrant is needed for? None. Legal migrants so sign up for the work visas. And they always forget to mention that most of these people bring multiple children & family members with them who are not paying taxes- who are immediately enrolled into schools for free. Citizens don’t get to only start paying taxes when their kids are enrolled.
@@BettyBlack99
Shortage of workers in specific is filled with selective immigration of the workers for the required field and there are legal processes to it but immigrants in mass is supported by the Government in order to divide debt of the country,a debt gathers due to excessive military expenditures abroad.
The overwhelming majority are not medical professionals, and foreign credentials are not equivalent to western or East Asian credentials. Get real
@@gintasvilkelis2544 Does every Swede?
Why does GDP per capita not show what he says in Sweden? The growth was slower than that of denmark that had no asylum in comparison. The reason why nobody talks about what he says is because he seems to prefer to bend the truth around kindness than harsh facts.
What an incredible video! The style and structure are top notch but the content amazing: fresh, nuanced, informative and provocative. Everyone should dig deeper on this topic through this path so we can have a better conversation on this complex issue. Cheers!
They misrepresented completely what the "cost" of migration calculations in Sweden looked like in 2015. The main thing economists looked at was the previous years in how much they were a part of the tax burden and how much they payed into the system. That number had been negative since the late 90s. The second main thing was how saturated the job market was for jobs that required no skill or expertise. The 2015 prediction was accurate, but it didn't account for the enormous spending that pushed the new migrants into what was basically made up jobs.
You really should interview more than one person when discussing such a large subject as this. All you did was provide a propaganda piece to spread his single view. Good production quality, was hoping for content to match.
This was interesting to watch from a British perspective. Because here in the UK, the fiscal cost-benefit calculation that the professor thinks is irrelevant is usually cited by the PROPONENTS of immigration. They claim that immigrants pay more in tax than they receive in benefits (though the figures are debatable) and therefore they are a net benefit to the economy. I have always been sceptical about this argument as it implies that an immigrant who is paid to dig a hole and fill it in again and who pays taxes on his wages is a net contributor, which is obviously bonkers.
However, I’m not at all convinced by this video. For a start, the professor doesn’t explain what calculation he did to come to the conclusion that immigrants do benefit the economy.
It’s interesting that the professor mentions modern monetary theory. Proponents of MMT argue that taxes do not fund public expenditure. Rather, the government has an unlimited amount of money and taxes are required merely to prevent inflation. And in a sense, of course, this is true. But in another sense, it is not true. Because if you increase spending and then, in order to guard against the risk of inflation, you raise taxes, that is sort of the same thing as saying that you are raising taxes to fund public expenditure.
I think I detect the same sleight of hand in the professor’s argument in this video. He seems to be saying that the resources that an immigrant or a nurse receives from the state (in the form of childcare, health services, education for their children etc.) are not real resources. His argument that they are not real resources is that it is possible to put a monetary value on these resources therefore the resources do not exist! So if an immigrant receives an operation on the Swedish health service and the operation costs 10,000 krona, (I’ve made up the number, I’ve no idea how much it would cost!), the professor believes that because the operation has a price tag, no real resources have been used up! But this is obvious nonsense. The time of a surgeon is a real resource.
From everything I have read, it is clear that immigration has increased the number of serious crimes committed in Sweden. Obviously this has an economic as well as a societal cost. Has the professor quantified this economic cost? The police who have to be employed to investigate the crimes, the courts who have to spend time, trying and sentencing people? I bet he hasn’t.
Mmt is a red flag...
Bearing in mind less than 15% of immigrants actually bloody work in the UK (inc their dependants) their contribution to society is....debatable! We got the good Irish immigrants who worked and contributed. Then the Ugandan Asians who grafted. Now we have the plethora of economic migrant benefit scroungers. Lovely.
Or we could also calculate the amount of citizen crime, and deduce that they are the problem and completely replace them, no ? After all, since the immigrant is but a piece of transportable good without family, feelings or a future in your opinion why are we actually treating someone as deserving simply because their parents had a fun night one day and decided to plop the baby on that particular side of the rock? Lets be real anytime you migrate people by the millions you will have increased crime by default because people are people, however you also have millions of jobs and businesses created (Specially food businesses, cannot deny the kabob business is doing incredibly well in Sweden now)
Poland has no migrant muslims and their GDP is growing most in europe. Can you explain that?
An important thing you forgot to mention is that market shocks are always bad.
A steady stream of immigrants is easier to for any market to manage than a sudden influx. It has more time to react.
Most commenters have not seen the entire video... The idea of actual physical, human and cultural means limiting immigration capacity makes a lot of sense. You can see it in schools where it just naturally takes a huge effort to help foreign-born kids get up to speed and where it is not so much about paying for the extra slot for the kid. The overstretching of "immigration capacities" will threaten, if it has not already harmed the idea of welcoming migrants over the long run as acceptability decreases and public consent is being dismantled. It would have been interesting to have at least a second view on this approach developed by the professor. If such a nuanced view existed... Not so much in order to oppose his view for the sake of debate, but to gain depth on this way of evaluating public policy. Kudos for taking on this hot topic!
What do you mean by get those kids up to speed in school? Mostly they just need to learn the local language and while they're doing that you already have some teachers who speak their language who came as refugees too who can help them with other subjects. Plus some of those kids are gonna know some English as well, you can bet on that, and English is common enough in Sweden that you've got all these little bridges that with some creativity and flexibility can make for a pretty vital education environment. Or maybe you meant something else entirely?
@@almishti there is so much behind the expression "up to speed" and using it probably does not help me make my case. I can tell you from experience that learning the local language is a very long process and much more about finding yourself and integrating into a society than about the actual language part or accessing knowledge rapidly.
There are thousands of elements which make a young person able to follow a class in a smooth way, which could be broadly summed up in social behavior and cultural references. Language is the access to these elements, but does not replace them. So, my point is that, broadly speaking, generalizing heavily and on average, children from a different cultural and linguistic background need more attention than others. In a class of 25-30 students, you can have X students needing this special attention without the professor going nuts, these students being left on their own or other students being disadvantaged. Not to say that students from a local background never need that special attention, of course. This is what I like about the approach in this video, which does not question the idea of welcoming people, but highlights the human aspects of our capacity to welcome people in the right way. If you open the door to someone, you must have a seat for him or her to sit down, or a bed to sleep, but also time to spend with that person or, in some cases, look after them. It's not only about the size of the door, the number of seats and beds, but also about human capacity.
@@ldebrotb09 I see, yes that's a really good point. Thanks for taking the time to clarify.
I don’t have to watch the entirety of the video when the angle is so evident in chapter 1.
If I wanted to be fed a thought piece from one side of the political isle I’d hit skip, and that’s what I did. This isn’t an objective, agnostic report.
@@chris_noswe Not sure that anybody claims it is agnostic, but I still believe it adds to the otherwise binary way of looking at immigration as if it was just about letting people in or not.
How do you define the angle which seems to be so obvious? Capacity? I am not asking for the sake of debate.
You make some good points, politicians blaming migrants for everything is a simplistic answer to inequality in a country.Foreign workers i meet do jobs British people don't want to do.Lack of affordable housing and poor infrastructure are the governments fault!
The video talks about GDP, not GDP per capita. "How much they get out from welfare systems..."? Do these welfare systems include the power stations, the water treatment plants and water and power distribution networks. Do these welfare systems include sanitation and telecommunications? Because these comforts did not fall from the sky, and the migrants did not pay for them.
Migrants contribute to the need for still more infrastructure that everyone has to pay for, not just the newcomers that make it necessary. Of course, the construction companies love their taxpayer funded projects, as do their employees, many of whom are foreign. And the infrastructure counts as GDP, even though it is paid for by taxpayers.
Trust me as an American, the end game of your logic is the repealing of all social safety nets and privatizing everything. The politicians will use you for this.
Yes but in the end you get the real resource of actual infrastructure. That otherwise wouldn't exist.
@@Pyromancers We would be better off if much of that infrastructure didn't exist. Concrete is polluting and building materials destroy wildlife habitat.
@@Pyromancers people things robots will drop from heaven, when they need it.... Elon will go to mars without real resources 😂
There is more to life than a political philosophy based on 'number go up'
I have to give you that much, the video is well produced, but the content seems quite biased. So I wanted to give you a fair feedback.
The first issue is a lack of context in some places: in 1:50 you do not add any nuance to the economic growth of Sweden. It makes it seems like this growth is purely driven by migrants, which probably is not true. There is also no per capita information. 8:02: We are being introduced to Modern Monetary Theory (and the professors book Modern Migration Theory is clearly a derivative of this) but I doubt that most people know that this theory shunned by the vast majority of scholars in this field. Out of the 20+ lecturers I have talked to at university of Zurich, not a single one supported this idea and all of them said it was probably wrong in the long term. Clearly, one university is a cluster, so there is a pattern behind this, but context matters. To argue within the logic of this video: Bank money might seem only limited by our computer storage but in reality money is based on trust - and trust is limited as you can see.
Another issue, where context matters is who you count a a migrant. When it comes to the discussion of accepting migrants, their origin tends to matter: According to the Danish government, mean within-EU-migrants are above average contributors to the Danish economy. MAGREB migrants are on average net consumers. It is important to stress, that these are averages, I am used to that kind of data and the assumed underlying normal distribution - other people might not be. But that's why it doesn't make sense to argue for migration like it happened in 2015, just because migrants from Germany, UK and other rich places are more often than not doctors. In the comments (about criminality) you make a similar mistake, where you just throw bigger groups into one bucket: Even if total criminality is going down, your data does not explain which group contributes how much to this. It is possible that the Swedish born population has a decreasing crime rate while the migrant rate is increasing. Just because nothing is happening in the sum, there can still be change. It's the logic of a steady state. I do not know the detailed data for Sweden myself and I cannot be bothered to check. But your argument is incomplete.
I will stop here because I am actually supposed to study right now. But I think this criticism can help you make better videos in the future. Again, the production value is promising otherwise I would not have bothered to write this much. Cheers
Thanks for your comment, I hoped someone will debunk this leftist view of immigration ( partial truth ), I hope you debunk all the vid if you have some time.
Thanks a lot
Long term this doesn't add up, yes when a government spends it dumps money into an economy which will boost any economy but the long term costs are quite different and it doesn't address the main concern which is not economic but cultural change.
Its different in uk were we have been told for many years how good migration is for the economy, yet the last few years with highest ever migration we have had some of the lowest growth.
you are not allowed to say that - you are now booked in for a Re-Education Workshop by the Ministry of Truth
@@michaelingram8056again no one is doing that. You can make your point just as well through data instead of sarcasm
@nananou1687 thanks for the tip, but how about I do what I like, and how about you stop playing distraction games?
The s**tshow of brexit has nothing to do with the failing growth??
@@RedBeardDog ah the classic Straw Man when it comes to immigration
Nothing about the cultural impact of migration on the reciepiant society 🧐?
Very true and not just culture, in Malta we hardly speak our language.
is culture a real thing in modern societies?
His position is quite understandable he sees a Country as an economic zone in nothing else. People are widgets in our interchangeable you’re not actually people connected by blood Language culture etc. it’s just a shopping zone. What’s good for business is just good.
My country is not its GDP. My city is my city because of its people, traditions, festivals, history and culture, not its economic output.
The re-alignment of wealth is what gets overlooked in the equation.
Cheap labor creates wealth for corporations and it's wealthy investors while at the same time robs the working class of living wages.
I live in California which is the 5th largest economy in the world surpassing whole countries like Russia. Immigration and in particular illegal immigration is a big reason for it's GDP.
Agriculture is a huge part of the economy and immigrants have always been a huge part of that industry. Immigrants build the houses, mow the lawns, etc.
The previous working class can barely afford rent let alone buy a house and this has set the stage for demagogues who lust for power like Victor Orban and Donald Trump to sieze on the frustrations of the working class.
It reminds me of a cartoon I saw where there are 3 guys sitting at a table. One is wealthy and has a plate with a mound of donuts. The guy next to him has one donut on his plate and the guy next to him, an immigrant has no donuts. The rich guy tells the guy with one donut that the immigrant wants his donut.
Wealth creates the power to stear the narrative and if we aren't smart enough to see demagogues for what they are then we're screwed.
Migration has had a negative impact on Sweden's government finances, especially in the early years of refugees' arrival. Some say that the cost of receiving and integrating refugees into the labor market is high. In 2015, refugees accounted for 5.1% of public finance revenues but 7.4% of costs, resulting in a net negative contribution of 2.3% of public spending.
It is not spending - it is investments in the future..
In Malta, we overdid it. One-third of the workforce are immigrants, which increased government revenues to the point that taxes will be decreased in 2025 which is the only positive thing. However, this strained health services, traffic, electricity supply, infrastructure, and increased rent, and property prices. Adding to this are millions of tourists and expats who turned the country into English-speaking as your taxi or bus driver, waiter, nurse, or postman are all foreigners. As a Maltese, when I hear the words ''go back to your country'', I say I really wish I could.
Even if I accept everything in this video, there are 2 things missing.
- First is the obvious cultural difference. When people in Europe say immigration is a problem, they're not talking about neighbouring countries most of the time, but immigration from outside of Europe. Cultural difference, like not respecting women's rights.
- The other thing is: if immigration is not actually that bad, then what do people feel when they see their lives getting worse? What causes that then? Let's say a country has low birth rates, and then someone proposes that immirgation will fix that. But then instead of original citizens' lives getting better, it gets worse. Why is that?
You know, I can’t speak for Sweden. But here in the US the people that speak most about preserving the culture and respecting women’s rights when it comes to immigration, are the same people that actually don’t respect women’s rights.
Also, again in the US, I’ve noticed that people who claim we can’t afford immigrants instantly pivot to cultural issues when ever it’s pointed out that immigrants are a net positive for the economy.
If they don't respect women's rights they get arrested and they are no longer part of the culture and Islam supports women's right just in a slightly different way
> then what do people feel when they see their lives getting worse? What causes that then?
That probably doesn't have a simple answer and it probably depends on the country. Take Australia, the place I live, for instance: a lot of people blame migration for the cost of living crisis, but lack of goverment investment and excess of monopolies probably have a bigger portion of the responsibility.
Immigration this, immigration that.... How about further destabilization of region from immigrants came from? How about brain drain, worker drain further weakening this countries? How about further lowering life quality? This questions show global crisis where stronger countries cannibalize weaker but there are no stronger countries only these who still have advantage. This advantage are used to keep stronger position to the point when there be no more. The last stage of empire.
Tack för den videon, nu har jag objektiva argument för min sak!
I’m Canadian and it is the first time I here that politicians talk about the cost of immigration. All my life I heard that it was good for economy and that they should come to counter the aging population.
So I just can’t understand the beginning of the video… Here the gouvernement was planing to bring 500 000 migrants this year. He just revised this number to 400 000 because of the cost of immigration (society is not organized to build that much homes, train and hire that much health workers and teach the language for all these peoples. With such large numbers, these people gather themselves in ethnic clusters and don’t mix with the native population and erosion of the social cohesion bring other cost that are more difficult to estimate…
In Canada , a country that needs people and infrastructure to access resources, immigration is a good thing .
But since The 90s we stopped building infrastructure so industries are having a hard time using those immigrants
That is an important point that needs to be added to the immigration discussion: the constraints are not only material resources but also social cohesion and the culture shock when cultures have very different traditions or principles. It is not about judging the traditions of any country, but really thinking if cultures are compatible to live together and under the same values and laws. If a Canadian goes to live in Dubai he/she has to think if he/she is able to adopt and integrate with the population there and shares their values, as no country needs isolated populations (a healthy society needs contributions from everyone) and the same analysis should be done by anyone thinking in migrating. We are not talking about everyone being the same, but sharing common ground in regard to social values and the rights of everyone. No country is ready to have a massive influx of migrants overnight without issues, but also no country will be able to be competitive and thrive without some contact with the outside world and a manageable intake of migrants from other places, it’s a balancing act where no extreme is a good idea.
@@GeekyJediMister So, Americans, with their different culture and traditions and principles, should have their culture, traditions and principles blocked at the border of Canada. No more American books, films, television, music. French culture should be blocked at the border. Irish and Scottish culture should be stopped at the border.
What would you do with the English culture? Would you consider that to be "native" culture?
Have you ever noticed that the rich choose to live among themselves. They have their own segregated ( even gated ) "communities", that would be called Ghettos, if the people were poor instead of rich.
Then you say cultures have to be "compatible to live together". But you don't say who gets to decide what is "compatible" what "values" and what "laws" are enforced. ( They would have to be enforced, otherwise the whole notion is just nonsense ) Who do you say should do the choosing and the enforcing?
Who decides where people can live? Who decides how many rich people per Sq, Km should be allowed?
You may not want to talk about "everyone being the same" but you have already decided that some people are "the same", i.e. belonging to one culture, and another group are the same, i.e. belonging to another culture. You simplify it to the extent that you have somehow decide that the "native" culture is one culture and that all the "immigrant" culture is one culture. How you divide culture so neatly you don't say.
Can you explain how "Canadian culture" is one thing?
Is there only one "Canadian culture" or do you divide it differently, maybe along the lines of "Acceptable as Canadian Culture" or Historic Canadian Culture. ( you could thereby include "French Culture", "English Culture", "Scottish Culture" etc as Canadian culture because they are acceptable or historic)
You haven't explained who decides about any of that. Please do. Because if you don't, it means you are just waffling.
You also have to say who decides what constitutes a "manageable intake" and what constitutes "other places". Is Alaska an "other place" in relation to Yukon? They are in different countries, as you well know.
Who decides if Greenlandic culture is different from Nunavut or Newfoundland culture?
You really need to work out your ideas because from what I read you have not put any basic thought into it.
That is not a criticism. It is just an observation on how your culture decides things.
from my experience as a female doctor originating from an arabic country, who immigrated to an european country. I myself was born in a well educated family. I was actually raised with "Western" standards. I am not religious an I never thought of myself as an Arabic muslim person, until I get here. At the beginning, I couldn't see any difference between me and other natives. I tried hard to integrate and make friends, but I have always the feeling that I am not welcomed . I was always complaining about not finding a reason why I am treated this way. I often went home after work and cried because it made no sense for me and in the same time, I couldn't just labelled it with racism. Now after 5 years, I am sorry to say that I start looking for people from my own Country and maybe other foreigners. So I can totally understand people who come to Europe and end up living in communities.
@@confirmationbias6080 Don't worry too much. There are people all over the world who respect others. They will respect and value you and the things you wish for yourself, your family and friends.
Don't be sad that some people have double standards. There are those who criticise people for "living in communities" but never complain about the rich living in rich communities. Just talk to people about the different parts of almost any city and you will see what I mean. London is a typical example. Name an area and see the stereotypical description of the inhabitants.
So, it is not just you. It is because people are blind when they have a prejudice to defend.
As a female doctor from and Arabic country you know the percentage of female students at universities in, for e.g., Saudi Arabia is very high.
Even in Iran the number of female university students is very high.
This is not the image a lot of people have of Muslim countries.
I am not a Muslim. I am not defending Islam or the regimes of Muslim countries. I'm simply pointing out the facts. How people think about these facts is up to them.
The main fact here is that you are a person with a good education who is in a position to do good and it is the quiet people who value you most. People who snub you or complain are trying to put themselves in the centre of things so as to get attention.
Ignore them, and remember that the many quiet, dignified and patient people are the ones who truly care.
I wish there was more I could do for you.
How refreshing it is to see discussions of the economics of migration that are truthful; not just fuel for fear mongering politicians and hate mongering pundits!
“Hate mongering pundits”
And what do you mean by that exactly?
Bruh, the United States is full of them. They distract from the various ways our plutocracy is wrecking the country and committing atrocities by convincing folks that the Cousins fleeing adversity and actually CONTRIBUTING to our communities are somehow a problem.
I have lived in the UK where the topic of Migration has been a big one for as long as I can remember. I am curious if your conclusion about the effects of migration of the GDP in Sweden would also be reflected in the UK?
I have never found out why there’s no real debate about the real issues in this complex issue that is surely one that has an impact on culture and society as much as wealth creation.
Thank you.
It’s a bit disingenuous to call this the truth about migration when there isn’t just one kind of migration. Migration is an umbrella term. If truth was your main aim here, you should have spent more time distinguishing between skilled and unskilled migration, regional migration, cultural migration, as well as next generation immigrant descendants from different backgrounds and parts of the world, among other distinguishing aspects of the umbrella term.
Also, as others have commented, there’s more to a nation than just economic growth, but your truth didn’t go down these politically incorrect roads, why not?
Distinguishing between the different types of migration might bring to the fore some unpleasant facts, and we can't have that. That's why the use of an umbrella term, which conveniently hides things we do not wish to confront.
To me, he seems to be addressing one type of discussion around immigration, and not the whole field of study. He probably did not discuss them because (1) it is a 15 min youtube video, and (2) the professor is just the guest on the channel. A youtube video could not summarize a topic that is so complex and cover everything you need to know in the field...
@ Yet he makes no such caveat in his video or summary, so your reading amounts to a cop out.
Any European living in Europe, earning less than €150,000 can tell this is absolute nonsense.
Except the tolerant, enlightened ones of course. Unless you only see the upside, you're just a bigot.
Libya has indeed faced significant turmoil over the past decade due to internal conflicts and political instability, which has driven some Libyans to seek refuge abroad. However, compared to other countries experiencing similar levels of unrest, like Syria or Afghanistan, the number of Libyan refugees in Europe and other regions is relatively low.
There are several reasons why fewer Libyans seek asylum abroad. Some factors include:
1. Strong Ties to Homeland: Many Libyans are deeply rooted in their land and culture, which can make leaving a difficult decision.
2. Internal Displacement: Many people affected by conflict in Libya may choose to move within the country rather than seeking asylum abroad.
3. Migration Challenges: It can be more difficult for Libyans to reach Europe or other places that offer asylum, compared to refugees from countries geographically closer to asylum destinations.
As a Swede living in Ukraine I must disagree that "ALL" immigration is a benefit. Here there is a big difference having some western immigrants or russians with guns. Just saying.
Wait until you see their plans for replacing the young Ukranian men expended in the crazy - totally unnecessary war with the Russians.
Of course there's a difference. It's just that in the west, you're not allowed to notice.
@thomasvilhar7529
Which "Russians" with pistols are you talking about? And Russians and Ukrainians are both European groups and culturally pretty much the same! Especially from the perspective of Western Europeans, I can guarantee you that! As a Central European, I have millions of Russians and Ukrainians in my country than 100,000 Arabs or other non-Europeans.
@@bertrecht913 Me too, in Finland. Even though Russia is our archenemy, I´d rather have them immigrating here than non-Europeans, especially muslims. Most Russians who live here integrate well. The ones I know personally from work etc. are nice people who respect our culture.
You might not like Putin, but that doesn't mean that Russian immigrants are especially problematic.
I know a Russian immigrant. Fine person, pays their taxes, doesn't commit crime, all good.
Identity could be considered one of the most important assets a country has, and many countries are giving it up to keep up the wealth on paper. In the end these countries will have neither.
Even if the case was to be made that migrants are a net benefit in every single possible category, the point remains they will not turn their host country into a richer version of itself, they will change what their cultural country is.
Immigration only works incrementally, or with countries that share a similar culture.
You can look to the US as an example. It's just 50 third-world countries in a trenchcoat. No common community, no coherent culture outside of business interests, just a multitude of small communities that are either strangers, or sometimes even hate each other.
In many ways this video is as if the weather was freezing rain and someone told you "no, don't wear your coat, it isn't snowing"
Brilliant. And from the informative comments one can acknowledge that the more you know about the situation the better we can cope with everything, politics and economics. We need this more than ever!
I m from Uruguay. I m happy to have found your channel. Keep doing
I hear what you're trying to say from an economic view point. But there's a costs happening to societies that can't be measured like this. And unfortunately it's the next generation that will pay the price.
Many said covid helped kill product globalisation. But now we have human globalisation.
If you only look at economic cost... are there any other costs to society to consider?
Migration is kind of modern colonialism and Romania is a good example for this. Brain drain is an EU issue, very true.
How isit like modern colonialism
That's ridiculous, migrants are not taking control of the native populations. Modern colonialism is Syria and Iraq, the West Bank and Gaza etc.
I watch so many UA-cam channels for various subjects: philosophy, sports, fitness and basketball, finance, etc. This UA-cam channel is one of the most pleasant surprises this year. Thank you
It's really surprising to me that I've never heard of this perspective to migration. To me, it has always been kind of natural, but I couldn't have put it into words. I'm from Germany and I know, that there are many migrant workers in the cities around me, really contributing to our society. Still, when you listen to politicians, you only hear about them "leeching" off our wealth or kindness.
Great video, I'd be happy to see more!
I live in a small California town that has a lot of agriculture and a lot of tech businesses. And what I see from the migrants from the south are really hard-working people. I see people working hard, trying to make a better life for their children.
And I’m not saying they’re all in agriculture, they are nurses and car mechanics. Second generation and beyond own bakeries and coffee shops. Not to mention all the fantastic Mexican food.
Watching politicians and demagogues demonize these people makes me sick to my stomach.
I appreciate hearing the other side of the argument. However, unfortunately, your position is just as biased and one-sided, just as propagandist as that of the ultra nay-sayers.
(1) It is misleading to present GDP figures, as those have hundreds of overarching causes unrelated to the true issue.
(2) It was useful, when you showed the fraction of migrants in low-paying jobs. It proves that migrants can be useful for the economy (and they are). But why don't you also note the distribution of those migrants by the country of origin? Or by number of years lived in Sweden?
(3) You have conveniently used the words "migrant" and "asylum seeker" somewhat interchangeably in the video. Should not there be some distinction?
(4) Finally, it is useful that you mention the methods of measuring economic productivity of migrants used by the government are flawed. But the existence of a bad proof for a hypothesis does not make the hypothesis wrong, it in fact says nothing at all about the hypothesis, so should not be used as an argument in either direction.
Now here is the TRUTH that we ACTUALLY want to know:
1) What fraction of migrants contribute to the economy (by working any job), and what fraction of migrants are just receiving benefits?
2) How is (1) affected by country of origin of migrants. Is there a statistical difference between asylum seekers and economic migrants?
3) What are the statistical effects of migration on employment rate in the country.
4) What are the effects on crime?
5) How well do these people integrate? Is there formation of clusters of non-integrated people?
Greetings from Greece. Especially the last question is very important. Never been to Sweden, i do not know your culture. But here in my country it is obvious that the vast majority of immigrants (coming from Asia and Africa) cannot integrate to our society because of vast cultural differences. They do not want to integrate and will not. On the contrary, we are forced to slowly change our culture in order to put up with theirs.
Basically, anyone can apply bias to economics. Be it pro or anti migrant since that's the focus here clearly. Logic says, "If your household is suffering, you can't afford guest. Seems too me like countries/government need to prioritize their household first.
Sweden already did that, they still have one of the highest living standards in the world, after all that immigration.
Higher than the anti-immigrant Japan for example.
Yea when said guest decodes to raid your bbq, fridge, help themselves to your bedroom, clothes, tools and utilities, and you gotta pay for the extra growth in your household oh so lovely jubbly isn't it?
@@Marqanhigh standards? What planet are you on 😂😂😂 Mogadishu 😂😂😂
@@danzolion8758The Swedish middle class can nag until they get subsidies and welfare pretty fine.
@@SusCalvin as long as it's the Swedish middle class, and not the Somalian underclass, at least the middle class or working class as I would call them, actually pay into the system.. I have no issue with this
What you didn't mention is that there are some cultures that pose a realistic threat if kept unchecked and one can not let in as many people of them as there is housing. I think it would be best to assimilate them first and make sure you don't get too many of them as their fertility rates are often far greater. Also I wish that the professor could have shown us some other statistics like the economic activity of migrants.I mean is it really so that there is no difference at all between earning less and being financed by the state?
But overall thank you for this new view on migration.
I have to say I agree, the net impact of migration in the overall economy is positive. However, mass immigration has strong social and cultural impact in the receiving country which is not always positive and can be critical in terms of social stability, cultural and religious assimilation and crime rates. A strong controlled, coordinated system of a “filtered immigration” is therefore necessary instead of a policy of “open borders”.
Finally an intelligent opinion on a vid like this …. Only valid comment on this page
Okay batista whatever you say hombre just like south America eh? 😂😂😂
It would mean a system where the upper middle class and companies are free to move, but people of my class are locked in.
What good is a successful economy when crime religious and ethinc tensions are wide spread. Id rather live a simple life then worry about violence and crime 24/7, its even worse for women of course.
HOW IS IT WORSE FOR WOMEN
@@Bell_plejdo568p i dont get harrased by men from primitive cultures on the street, most young women in western cities do nowadays sadly.
@@Bell_plejdo568pMaybe stop watching msm propaganda and start doing your own research. Muslim communities immigrating into European countries is a terrible mistake "the great reset" elit thinks will just watch and do nothing... The 'peacful religion' has never been and never will be welcomed on the European continent.
100% agree. Thank you for clarifying my thoughts and putting it so clearly out here. ❤😊
The presenter appears to be living in an alternate universe where most European politicians are against mass immigration.
I would like to see The Market Exit make a video about the universe where the rest of us in Europe live. In our universe, European politicians have been enthusiastic proponents of unprecedentedly high immigration.
Perhaps he can explain to the viewers how Europe has become a utopia of happiness, health and prosperity as a result of mass immigration.
As a Canadian who is currently watching my community be overwhelmed by mass immigration (i.e., growth rate last year of 3.2% versus 0.5% in the US and 0.325 in Western Europe, I'm floored by the tone of the so-called expert and the presenter. The tone is smug - as in "We know better, and actually Sweden could even accept more migrants from cultures completely different than our own etc. In no way do I trust their figures, and I've seen and heard too much about the decline of Sweden's quality of life in urban centers to believe anything these two have to say. I was utterly disgusted to see the figures they were proudly presenting regarding X% of bus drivers are immigrants, and Y% of cleaners are immigrants. Why not properly pay people within your own community/nation to do these jobs? You are a mouth-piece for forces undoing Swedish soceity.
Well said.
Yes, well said. I said pretty much the same as you before I saw your post. You put it better.
The plan of the great reset (the new name for the new world order) has been planned and implemented for many many years.. European countries and the whole Western civilisation MUST BE DILUTED.
100% facts 100% truth 100% bravery for you to write this down. I could not agree more with you!❤
According to the great plan of the "great reset" every single step, each and every move around the globe, - including the wars in the middle east then migrating those who suffer from the wars and placing the immigrants/rfuggeees into western countries, - each step had been carefully planned.. and precisely implemented.. 😢
Amazingly shortsighted views, taking into account "economic effects" only, when cultural and societal effects are the most important part of the story...
I don't know, the points you share are really interesting, but this doesn't really debunk many of the popular downsides of migrantion, like for example, job competition, crime, and many others, just shows another perspective.
It's a special kind of stupidity, where someone thinks GDP growth is the ultimate goal in a society, and not the integrity of the people, land and culture.
Ultimate goal of society is to make rich people more rich (nonironically, since pur society reached agricultural state)
@@maksimfedoryak that is reductive. There are greedheads, but also there are elites in some places who are tied to the land. Benevolence does exist, and automatic beliefs (all politicians are corrupt, the police are brutal, businessmen are profiteering, doctors want to keep you sick) and mean world syndrome in general is a distraction at best.
Integrity of people improves when the economy thrives. Integrity of land? Do you mean environmental regulations. If so yea that's definitely more important but can still be pursued along with gdp growth. Integrity of culture? Not sure what that even means, culture will stick around and develop automatically regardless cause that's how culture works. Not something we really need to focus on
@@racool911GDP is not a measure of a good economy. GDP can grow whilst real wages depress.
@@suburbanyobbo9412 Yes it is, I think you're talking more about quality of life
It's the benefit system. In the past migrants came to work or to starve, and now there is free stuff paid by others.
It's highly important to watch and learn about different viewpoints on a topic, especially the ones you disagree with. You can't have a proper discussion about something if you dont know what your talking about, and if you dont know what the opposing viewpoint actually is *you literally dont know what you're talking about*
It sounds like the boost in GDP came from government spending, if the migrants were of a benefit to the country then you would expect there to be little inflation from this expansion of this money supply. So all Swedes would have to do to fact check this video is go food shopping.
I feel like we've regressed as a species if we think that reality is less important than finance.
The professor's analysis didn't include the cost and impact on your culture.
Yeah, just totally lump together every migrant in the foreign born category since there is really no difference between a migrant from an EU member state from Eastern Europe and an Afgan, we see what you did there.
Great comment. Exactly. 100% agree. 😊
Here in Canada we have a severe affordable housing shortage, and hospital emergency rooms closing periodically due to a shortage of overwhelmed nurses.
Many nurses have left for the US for the sake of their sanity. Although the better paying jobs and a lower cost of living didn’t hurt.
Bottom line, we let in more people than we had the infrastructure to support.
Immigration needs to be directly related to the needs of employers.
Those are the immigrants that improve an economy.
Unskilled immigrants are great for filling fast food jobs, but once those positions are staffed, the remainder are a burden.
He addressed that in the video
Quick question ? Why migrants didn’t migrate to neighbouring countries ?
Because neighboring nations like Egypt or Sudan are in dire economic straights at best and at worst in active civil wars. Sweden also had attractive policies vs some other Euro nations (though if I were used to the climate of N. Africa or the near east, I would not want to move to a climate like Sweden's lol)
@@handeggchan1057 sorry but looks like you have no clue about the economic situation of Egipt
@cryplots2815 I'm well aware of how bad it is. They have a massive overpopulation problem in the Nile River valley where 97% of their population lives, to the point they are embarking on massive city building projects to releive the issues in Cairo. Add, what, a a million refugees to that? It would only exacerbate it.
And this is besides the point - why should people who have lived there for generations have to move? Without a guarantee they can return, it is just effectively ethnic cleansing of the area.
a country has no responsibility to immigrants. The example isnt fair to compare women, cleaner etc.
If you see it like the way you explain, you can take the whole world and dont see a problem
looks like paid video. down shift from thinking and research to playing concepts. simplest.-foreign born VS emigrants out of EU. timeline of benefits VS not good not time sensitive to you. England, Dutch time including research not mentioned- there are no benefit. you suck this time
I believe the Swedish government is afraid that there will be a mass exodus of young, skilled Swedes leaving in search of a safer place to raise children. These types of videos are a "don't worry, everything's going to be okay" message. Given how bad things are there now, I wouldn't want to even go there on holiday, let alone raise a family there.
@@caravanlifenz I dunno where you're from, but I feel perfectly safe in Sweden. Media does what media does and inflate the issues we have and it looks very dramatic. But if you actually live here, you'll see that there's not much going on in your everyday life.
@@caravanlifenz do you live in Sweden ? Sweden is one of the safest country in the whole world. you are just exagerating
The UK government did a study showing that the average migrant costs around £200,000 to integrate. Remember migrant government services.
Why didn’t he look at crime rate, how many immigrants are admitted to the hospitals? How many are using social services? How many crimes are due to immigrants? How many migrants are going to court? How many of those that go to court need public defenders (if that’s a thing there)?
Trying to talk math but confused average with median. Typical social studies researcher
The quality and informativeness of your videos are without exaggeration among the best ai have ever seen in UA-cam! Thank you
"It's good actually because line go up"
line go up down up down all the time, still we see it as going up only... that is the magic of existence
I use to visit my Swedish girlfriend before they opened their borders to everyone and his horse. It was a great country. I visited it a couple of years ago and it was a complete toilet.
In what way?
A cost is not only financial. Identity, culture, language, traditions, security... It can be costly, and completely free.
I'm sorry, but the whole narrative of the video is wrong. The only reason for mass migration was PURELY ECONOMICAL. There was a wide consens that migration is needed, from the left to conservatives, the only people that disageed were far-right parties.
The reason why the tone has changed, is the cultural and societial consequences of migration, and to be more specific: islamic migration. While most muslims are still a win for their countries, there is a lot of problems with a considerable part, who don't want to learn the language or adapt to the culture. Doesn't really matter at what european crime statitics you look, when it comes to violent crime like rape, the majority of the criminals are muslims, although being mostly single digit percentages of the respective countries.
This is the whole issue. So acting like it's a big surprise that migrants are generally an economical win is just dishonest. That has been know for decades. But that's not the reason why migration has faced so much criticism in the last years. The left has downplayed the problems for years and now the far right is surging everywhere.
Racism is wrong and shouldn't be supported, but to act as if as everything is alright just helps the racists win election. And don't play number games like "the crime stats are pretty much the same" 1) The have been falling for a long time now. That they are no longer falling is a trend reversal. 2) The crime stats that are really important are violent crimes like rape, murder and so on. Nobody gives a fuck if someone steals gum from the supermarket.
Islam isn't a race or ethnicity.
@@Knight766Islam is strongly associated with non-white or non-Western ethnicities. Which is why Islamophobia is often referred to as a form of racism.
I lived in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, and did not speak the language. I associated with other white ex-pats far more than the local population. Many of my values were different to the average Indonesian while others were the same. Are you saying that my life in Indonesia was bad for their country? Or does this only apply when non-Westerners immigrate to Western countries?
I grew up in multiple cultures but Indonesia was the only one without English as an official language. Interestingly, living in the USA was just as much a cultural shock as any place I lived in Southeast Asia.
The crime statistics, even if they have increased, need to be looked at with nuance. Correlation does not equal causation and may not be associated with immigration or may not be associated with it to the degree or in the way you believe. One nuance to consider is that criminals are often most likely to commit crimes against people from their own cultures, so often the people least likely to be affected by any possible crimes by migrants are the locals.
There are many myths associated with immigration and crime. Internationally, immigration largely does not increase crime rates, including violent crimes and the only associations occur in very specific circumstances. These circumstances often involve the conditions within the host country. Broadly, immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born people and this gap is especially large for undocumented immigrants.
Regardless, in most places around the world, there are very stubborn beliefs that immigrants from certain ethnic groups commit crimes at higher rates than locals even when the data shows the opposite.
Do not underestimate the ability of out-group hostility and in-group favouritism to colour the way we see the world. Politicians and media outlets will take advantage of this human tendency to further their success or gain a larger audience with no respect for the truth, let alone the consequences.
@@BoiseLou Yeah, I'm not buying it. Fear of Islam is not irrational.
Hi Andres, thank you very much for HQ work.
Lack of "real human" resources on one side and "cultural war" as real cost on the other side....and none of these can be solved with money. Therefore....It seems to me...that we as Europeans aren't as smart as we over-valuated ourselves to be....
Further no matter how the factual truth ughly is, abased on our experience, we must admit when learning from our mistakes that migration MUST be strictly selective and democratic system MUST finally and once for ever solve paradox of toleration towards non-democratic ideolgoies.
After we are done with these....EU might finally move on...and go through BIIIIIG reconciliaton...
This video is not good, it does not explain anything. Bad theory. In economy it is always about Value Added. That should be considered.
It's funny, here in the United States the politically incorrect narrative is to say that immigration on a massive scale is a bad idea. You mentioned some statistics on foreign-born unemployment rates, but what have the native-born unemployment rates been? Low wages that immigrants are willing to accept can cause a negative pricing incentive and puts the people that have been creating that economy out of the picture. Its like growing a massive oak, then chopping it at the base and grafting a sapling onto the stump...
For what it's worth, Europeans are a lot more centrist than Americans think they are. Criticizing immigration is politically incorrect but like the US the left perpetuates the myth that the right has complete control the narrative at a national level.
It is also important to notice what is the general culture of the country where immigrants are moving, I live in Finland and for foreigners it’s very hard to integrate into society because jobs would rather hire Finns instead of foreigners, even if the foreigner is fluent in Finnish…
As Swede this was painful to listen to. Very much a far left interpretation of events in Sweden.
1:55: Of course they don't mention this a period of massive money supply expansion fueling the housing bubble, and low interest. Which of course boosts the economy at cost, a cost they are pretending Swedes aren't paying today.
10:20 Substitution doesn't imply a necessity. It makes Sweden larger, but even smaller nation like Denmark or Ice land can be just as fine.
Yeah came from how money works and this is utterly rarted.
Most of it is outright false and I have a lower opinion of how money works now than before I clicked on it.
I'm from Turkey and my country has been a home for at least 14 million immigrants since the Erdoğan government declared war on Syria in 2014. Hearing prof. Hansen opened up new visions in my mind regarding the immigration issue. Yes, immigrants indeed can enhance the working power in a country. But in a country such as Turkey, where corruption is very high, immigrants are considered cheap labor, making it hard for the unions to negotiate and allowing workers' wages to go way, way down.
Very good and balanced video. Interesting and thought prvoking and always nice to have a counter argument ready when someone says 'immigration is bad...' To show my appreciation I have subscribed. Thank you
Great video, no propaganda here, just honest truthful data reporting. Thank you
That was surprising!
I was hesitant to click this video as the title doesn't say much and is a bit provoking.
Thanks for your research!!
This video is so badly informed. GDP is the not the concern here! People need to look into the finer details, the statistics are hiding more important truths
The audacity for you to title this video “the politically incorrect views on migration” without any attempt to address the elephant in the room - migration from certain countries or specific groups of immigrants…. Those are the ones causing havoc in Europe or the Western world in general.
I have recently discovered your channel. On the whole, your vids are stimulating, intelligent and fair. This one, however, strikes me as dishonest . . . as if you are trying to make us all, yourself included, swallow an untruth. Yet, as I have said, you're work is stimulating, intelligent and fair for the most part, so I'll carry on watching. I appreciate the hard work you put into these vids. Thanks from the UK.
There is no justification for mass migration. Nations are as old as the Bible. People who shared a common identity always lived together. Identity is origin. There is no reason for mixed races. There is no reason for mass migration. There is no reason why people of different identities should live together.
If nations are as old as Bible, they aren't really old lmao. And mixed race people have always existed. There is a telltale sign of the same in anthropological history of man. These are bad arguments
@@nananou1687 why don't you try providing a good argument of your own? That would be a nice change to your comments so far.
During the early modern period, they had to beat the peasants until they understood that they were part of a nation.
Sweden was a patchwork of territories with different laws.
People who wants to protect tribal culture always make me suspicious. Like they dream of a world where they can boss me around.
This is some pathetic propaganda. You say you are a swede and that its not about "finances" but what effect has this flood of immigration had on the Swedish people? Population increases show good GDP on paper, because it is an easily exploitable formula, that is meaningless for most things economic.
Good to have confirmation from experts of what I always believed but did not have knowledge of.
You complain about politicians' one-sided view on immigration, yet both of you provide another one-sided view, just that it's another side? How ironic and biased of you.