[yummyfajitas]

The Soviet Union had only this system, nothing else. I'm proposing is using this kind of a system to provide government services (e.g. filling in potholes) in return for money we are already spending.

In the Soviet Union, there was no private sector. I'm proposing no restrictions on the private sector - in fact, one explicit goal of this system is to make government dependence less pleasant (you need to go out into the national park and build trails rather than sitting at home playing video games) so that more people enter the private sector.

[dragonwriter]

> In the Soviet Union, there was no private sector.

AFAICT, this was strictly true (if at all) only between the first Five Year Plan and 1936; the private sector (that is, non-government directed business) was restricted in both what markets it could participate, and the forms of business (in most markets where private industry was allowed, the only business form allowed was the individual independent worker/owner, to use the language of capitalist economy) but it was not nonexistent.

[yummyfajitas]

Ok. The only thing I'm proposing doing is reducing the disincentives to joining the private sector. Comparisons to the Soviet Union are nonsensical.

[dragonwriter]

> The only thing I'm proposing doing is reducing the disincentives to joining the private sector.

No, that's not all you are proposing. You are proposing a particular mechanism that you claim is aimed at that goal (not merely proposing the goal itself), which has concrete features beyond just the goal you claim for it.

> Comparisons to the Soviet Union are nonsensical.

Perhaps, but you haven't provided a reason to believe that, just offered a factually-incorrect distinction between your proposal and the labor policy of the Soviet Union.

[prostoalex]

In this dual system what happens to the government-run pothole-filling entity (and its employees) when it's outbid by a private pothole-filling contractor on most/all jobs?

[yummyfajitas]

Then the private pothole filling entity gets the contract, and the government directs it's dependents to do something else.

But it'll actually be pretty hard for the private sector to compete on any task requiring unskilled labor. The government gets labor at nearly zero marginal cost since it would be paying those people even if it didn't put them to work.

Again, literally the only thing I'm proposing is that instead of giving people money NOT to work, we instead give them money to work. I'm not proposing communism or slave labor.

[dragonwriter]

> Again, literally the only thing I'm proposing is that instead of giving people money NOT to work, we instead give them money to work.

No, you are actually proposing giving them money, whether or not there is work, and then trying to scrounge up some (perhaps meaningless) work so that the money you give them cannot be used for personal development, small entrepreneurship, etc.

> I'm not proposing communism or slave labor.

Forced, economically inefficient (hence, why there is no demand in the private market including that fulfilling government contracts) labor through economic coercion rather than chattel slavery, but I'm not sure that the difference is meaningful, especially if there really is a problem of a growing-over-time number of people unemployable at any given time in the private market due to changes which render their labor superfluous given the available alternatives.

[yummyfajitas]

No, you are actually proposing giving them money,...

We already give them money. I'm simply accepting that this is unlikely to change.

Forced, economically inefficient (hence, why there is no demand in the private market including that fulfilling government contracts)

The labor is not forced you are free to turn it down. We have no way of knowing whether the labor is economically inefficient, due to existing market distortions caused by paying people not to work.

In any case, unless you are claiming that there is no valuable government work to be done at all (are you?), it's a little silly to suggest that my plan to redirect idle labor into providing those government services is inefficient. The labor is either wasted or it's consumed.

[prostoalex]

> The government gets labor at nearly zero marginal cost since it would be paying those people even if it didn't put them to work.

The motivation for the overseers is clear. The worker bees have two choices - work hard (and get paid) versus do nothing (and get paid). Why would the workers go for the former versus the latter?

[dragonwriter]

Presumably, when ordered to work, the benefits would be cut off if the work was refused or performed unacceptably.

I mean, otherwise this whole mandatory-work-for-benefits thing doesn't make any sense (not to say that its a good idea even then.)

[dragonwriter]

I think the idea is that the jobs the government entity does are government-demanded jobs, and that private entities won't be given a chance to bid on them; they'll be reserved to the government and the pool of people it keeps out of regular work by reserving work for the command segment of the economy.

[prostoalex]

Right, if one introduces monopolies on certain job sectors, it's not a dual system, it's two parallel systems.

There are some short-term issues as far as performance and accountability for those hired into such monopolies, as well as aynrandian incumbency protection, such as rejecting light bulbs as too many are employed in the candle-making sector.