[ChuckNorris89]

>now miss that time dearly, when they could just work on what they liked, whether it’s science or city planning, get a free apartment from state, go to parental leave without worries for the future etc.

The problem is, such an utopic system where everyone works on whatever they want and gets free housing from the state was economically unsustainable long term. Which is why it collapsed and most of those people working in science immediately packed their bags and move to the US when it happened because talented people working on interesting things don't like living with shortages in a strict oppressive environment where you had to constantly watch your mouth or risk having your career or life ended swiftly.

It was only sustainable back then due to the massive natural resources the SU had, while enduring shortages and exploiting the forced/slave labor the SU had access to. Not something replicatable or desired in free societies today, though plenty of modern slave labor practices exists in rich western nations today where some industries only survive due to access to cheap labour willing to work below market rate and live in worse conditions than the locals.

[ivan_gammel]

Yes and no, it’s more complicated than that. SU style welfare state wasn’t really unsustainable economically — in fact it was rather cheap, it collapsed from different reasons (too much spending on military industrial complex and heavy industry at cost of everything else, no market feedback loop despite having quasi-market relationships between consumers and producers). Basically their economic models at strategic level had wrong KPIs, but incentive system for middle management and workers was ok. In late USSR it wasn’t really a slave labor.

[Muromec]

There isn't anything unsustainable in free housing. If everyone is working for the state and state is also everybody's landlord, it's not free, it's just part of compensation. And the housing was really basic anyway, as you can't choose.

Unsustainable part of USSR was military spending, not free housing.

[ChuckNorris89]

>There isn't anything unsustainable in free housing.

I meant it's unsustainable in capitalistic "free" market economy where it's an appreciating asset. But yes, the free housing in the communist times was actually one of the best things.

[mantas]

Looking what housing it was... I wouldn't be so sure. Today's cashier on a minimum wage lives in a much nicer apartment than average soviet citizen. Who was likely to spend his 20s and 30s in housing with shared amenities. With many people living their whole lives without ever getting a proper apartment.

[ivan_gammel]

That also depends. Capitalistic free market always has some welfare baseline, below which state intervenes and may use money collected via taxes to level the playing field. Free housing can be part of that baseline. It distorts the property market, but like with the opioids market we have to ask if it should be completely free or regulated to death. It’s not like economy will suffer, there will still be construction industry etc, but the incentives will shift and the money buried in property bubbles will go elsewhere.