3 ms·

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 depe

• 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.