3 ms·

That support comes with requirements and they will try to get you "reintegrated" and into a job so that you can support yourself. To use it as a salary with no

That support comes with requirements and they will try to get you "reintegrated" and into a job so that you can support yourself. To use it as a salary with no intention to work is not according to the purpose of this service.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pavlov 3y ago
Another way to look at this would be in the context of subsidies aimed at less populated areas of the country. A lot of people are concerned about the countryside going empty, and there are various policies aimed at reversing or at least halting that. They are necessarily income-transfer programs where cities subsidize the countryside. An individual getting paid 500 euros to live in a remote area doesn’t seem like a bad deal in that context. It’s a much more measurable outcome than many of these other programs, at least. But somehow giving money to an individual is much more morally controversial than giving money to a larger collective like a province or state. For example, Republicans generally don’t have a problem with federal programs that transfer income from rich states like California and New York to poor states like Alabama and Mississippi. But they would absolutely oppose similar income transfer on a personal level.
- danbruc 3y ago
  Would the aim of such programs not be to have a working society in those less populated areas instead of just filling it with non-working people completely dependent on others?
  - pavlov 3y ago
    People change. Especially for young people, I personally think it’s valuable to give them opportunities that are not immediately productive. If you could get a 21-year-old to move into the countryside, it might have significant long-term upside even if the person appears like a slacker right now. They could find a spouse and have kids. They could come up with an online business (which might still look like “slacking at a computer” to most of the world). They could eventually do local volunteer work that is important but can’t get done at market prices. There’s a lot of ways that a young person’s life can go. For older people the equation is a bit different for obvious reasons. But most government programs can’t discriminate by age, so you’d have to aim at a compromise.
    - danbruc 3y ago
      Sure, but that is for the people that finance the basic subsidence to deside, they decide what they expect in return. If they want to give the money unconditionally, fine, then it would of course not be immoral to take them up on the offer. I do not know what the Norwegian rules say, so maybe it is like that. On the other if you structure it like that, you open yourself up for exploitation by people who could work but prefer not to. And this could very well make them reconsider the conditions or make the entire thing unsustainable.
- marak830 3y ago
  It is something that is be interested to read about - using a basic stipend to redistrube wealth, to try and offset soloing (as in cities), which would (theoretically) help revitalise country towns (with more locals able to spend cash locally) An addition would be to create various centres to allow people to learn new skills and eventually reenter the workforce
- caskstrength 3y ago
  > A lot of people are concerned about the countryside going empty, and there are various policies aimed at reversing or at least halting that. They are necessarily income-transfer programs where cities subsidize the countryside. I wonder why. I would love to empty and re-wild more countryside.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

pavlov 3y ago

Another way to look at this would be in the context of subsidies aimed at less populated areas of the country. A lot of people are concerned about the countryside going empty, and there are various policies aimed at reversing or at least halting that. They are necessarily income-transfer programs where cities subsidize the countryside. An individual getting paid 500 euros to live in a remote area doesn’t seem like a bad deal in that context. It’s a much more measurable outcome than many of these other programs, at least. But somehow giving money to an individual is much more morally controversial than giving money to a larger collective like a province or state. For example, Republicans generally don’t have a problem with federal programs that transfer income from rich states like California and New York to poor states like Alabama and Mississippi. But they would absolutely oppose similar income transfer on a personal level.

danbruc 3y ago
Would the aim of such programs not be to have a working society in those less populated areas instead of just filling it with non-working people completely dependent on others?
- pavlov 3y ago
  People change. Especially for young people, I personally think it’s valuable to give them opportunities that are not immediately productive. If you could get a 21-year-old to move into the countryside, it might have significant long-term upside even if the person appears like a slacker right now. They could find a spouse and have kids. They could come up with an online business (which might still look like “slacking at a computer” to most of the world). They could eventually do local volunteer work that is important but can’t get done at market prices. There’s a lot of ways that a young person’s life can go. For older people the equation is a bit different for obvious reasons. But most government programs can’t discriminate by age, so you’d have to aim at a compromise.
  - danbruc 3y ago
    Sure, but that is for the people that finance the basic subsidence to deside, they decide what they expect in return. If they want to give the money unconditionally, fine, then it would of course not be immoral to take them up on the offer. I do not know what the Norwegian rules say, so maybe it is like that. On the other if you structure it like that, you open yourself up for exploitation by people who could work but prefer not to. And this could very well make them reconsider the conditions or make the entire thing unsustainable.
marak830 3y ago
It is something that is be interested to read about - using a basic stipend to redistrube wealth, to try and offset soloing (as in cities), which would (theoretically) help revitalise country towns (with more locals able to spend cash locally) An addition would be to create various centres to allow people to learn new skills and eventually reenter the workforce
caskstrength 3y ago
> A lot of people are concerned about the countryside going empty, and there are various policies aimed at reversing or at least halting that. They are necessarily income-transfer programs where cities subsidize the countryside. I wonder why. I would love to empty and re-wild more countryside.