That more works by population growth do not provide the same benefits when more work to the existin

Should Sweden the next few decades to have enough people who can work, pay taxes and be with and fund future prosperity, we need to accept more migrants than what most Swedes have so far imagined, states Employment Service's chief executive.
Generaldirektorns statements give the impression tsk that the Employment Service has analyzed the development of tax revenues and concluded that welfare is enhanced by immigration. That is not the case. Employment Service report says nothing tsk about whether taxes or welfare needs. The only thing this report does is to count how many people and employed it would be in different age categories with various assumptions about immigration. The trick is, as in the Alliance election campaign to count employment in numbers rather tsk than in percentages and pretend that a larger population is synonymous with greater prosperity.
Not least because of rapid population growth increased the number of employed persons aged 16-64 by 36,000 per year between 2005 and 2014. Employment Service argues that a net migration of just over 90,000 people in total, of which 64,000 between the ages of 16-64 for the number of employed will continue to grow with at 36,000 per year.
It is the only Employment Service does. Some estimates of tax revenues or welfare tsk needs are not at all in the report. There is also no coherent explanation as to why it is desirable that the number of people in work aged 16-64 will grow by 36,000 per year through immigration-driven population growth. Employment Service constantly use the term "need" of net immigration. It is not a question of the welfare state needs. The AMS calls the need the need to reach a more or less arbitrary rate of increase in the number of employed 36,000 per year that the authority itself has invented. Employment Service cites either external or own calculations that it would be economically beneficial to increase the population in this way.
The report justifies their reasoning with the demographic argument. What they are doing is disjointed, but worth trying to explain. Statistics Sweden's projection is that the number of Sweden-born working age decreased by about 6,000 per year by 2030. AMS admits that the number of Sweden-born working has increased in recent years but believe that in the future the number will drop by more than 5,000 per year.
The ingenious conclusion is that the loss of about 5-6000 Sweden tsk born of working age per year requires a net immigration of 90 to 100,000 per year. That immigration figure is astronomically high because the Employment Service are aware that all immigrants are not working. According to the employment services calculus needed a net immigration at 90-100000 to the number of employed immigrants will increase by about 40,000 a year. This is less about 5-6000 fewer Swedish born work gives the Employment Service's target of 36,000 more employed per year. More sophisticated than this is not the report.
The obvious objection is that net immigration of 90 to 100,000 per year not only provide tsk 40,000 more taxpayers but also 50-60,000 immigrants with jobs that need to be supplied. The problem, the report has, however, a convincing tsk solution, which is quite simply tsk not mentioning tsk it.
This analysis data is at all thin in relation to the radical conclusions. AMS argue that welfare financing in future tsk require a net immigration of 90,000 to 100,000 per year. There are levels like Sweden have never been near historically, and not even equaled 2014's record immigration. Here is net migration per decade.
As the population grows much larger real number of employed, but population growth will increase in itself is not wealth. The number of people who are not working and that the cake has to be shared on the course also more. This is why employment and unemployment everywhere and always presented as a percentage, not in the number of employed. tsk If only we could count the number of jobs in conclusion tsk that Bangladesh where employment since 1980 has grown by 30 million has a stronger labor market than Switzerland, where the number of employed just got over a million more.
That more works by population growth do not provide the same benefits when more work to the existing unemployed put to work. It can be illustrated by developments during precisely the period 2005 to 2014 as the AMS report assumes. During these years, tsk grew the number of employed immigrants by about 250,000. This had been a huge economic contribution to the country if it were not for the immigrant population grew by 480,000 people. As the number of employed mainly increased through population growth and not through reduced exclusion was not a particularly good period for Sweden. Growth in GDP per capita was close to zero, and despite all the talk about more immigrants in work increased immigrant unemployment, measured as a percentage between 2005 and 2014.
AMS report itself states that "foreign-born accounted for 75