The Case for a Federal Jobs Guarantee
Why a Federal Jobs Guarantee beats both a tariff dividend and a Universal Basic Income as a way to close the wealth gap.
Recently, our leader has made headlines with what he believes to be an ingenious and foolproof plan to garner support from the American people. Unassumingly — and totally coincidentally — promised around the midterm election, Trump has been floating the idea of giving low- and middle-income Americans a “tariff dividend,” a lump-sum payment supposedly funded through the profits generated via his tariff-hike policies. The proposal takes the form of a $2,000 check for each qualified individual, meant to stimulate spending and give back to citizens in need. However, the logic disregards the real-world implications of tariffs themselves, which raise consumer prices and essentially act as a hidden sales tax. Inflationary effects and political motives aside, though, the effort to increase income for the middle and lower classes is much needed in a nation where the “bottom 50 percent” holds a mere “3 percent [of the total wealth]” (Smith).
To many, the obvious solution, then, is to continue providing stimulus checks not unlike the one Trump hopes to provide. Such is the basic premise of the Universal Basic Income proposal: the government should provide unconditional payments to its citizens, then tax wealthy individuals additionally to offset the cost. Many advocates also support a value-added tax on robots, to discourage technology companies from replacing human jobs with robotic labor. Not only are proponents overly optimistic about the IRS’s ability to enforce such tax codes — big corporations and the wealthy are notoriously skilled at tax avoidance, and a value-added tax has never been conducted in the US — but the premise of a UBI puts the country in a lose-lose situation: a “robotax” would push companies to “offshore” their business to countries that have “embraced automation” (Castro), while without such a funding mechanism, the UBI is likely to cause the elimination of other social welfare programs, such as Social Security (Williams). In other words, the program puts programs like Social Security, SNAP, disability benefits, and mortgage or housing assistance at risk — not because those receiving the benefits no longer need them, but because those who don’t will get a piece of the profits, too.
In direct contrast to where the UBI stumbles, the Federal Jobs Guarantee thrives. An intuitively more practical and affordable solution — given that it only serves those who apply for a job under the program — the Federal Jobs Guarantee, as government-policy professor Daniel Carpenter and economics professor Darrick Hamilton point out, not only has the capability to “eliminate involuntary unemployment,” but also the potential to rebuild “vital sectors” such as “public health, education, and infrastructure.” By channeling labor into these vital, yet currently neglected, areas, the FJG improves services for everyone while helping those in need. Thus, it outperforms the Universal Basic Income and other similar welfare programs in design, serving a mutually beneficial purpose rather than simply adding to the national debt. Furthermore, unlike a “robotax” that would likely do more harm than good — if it even works — proponents of a Federal Jobs Guarantee commonly promote a wealth tax as its funding mechanism instead. This serves as a second layer of wealth redistribution, taking money from those who have benefited most from the growing wealth gap and giving it to those in need.
A Federal Jobs Guarantee should also be seen as an important opportunity to restore public trust in government, a critical factor in the success of redistributive policies. Scholars have observed that redistributive programs aimed specifically at the unemployed are more effective at building confidence in government than universal payments, because they demonstrate that the state is delivering concrete benefits to those who need them most (Devarajan 2020). By focusing on employment rather than a universal cash transfer, the government signals a commitment to fairness and efficiency, while avoiding the populist pitfalls that can undermine UBI initiatives. A Federal Jobs Guarantee thus provides a multifaceted solution: it combats poverty, reduces inequality, supports economic growth, and strengthens the social contract between citizens and the state.
Ultimately, the appeal of Universal Basic Income is easy to see on paper — it’s the most direct way to redistribute wealth. However, its impracticability lies in its costly approach and its grandiose attempt to make up for its large price tag. Its alternative, a Federal Jobs Guarantee, accomplishes the same moral goal — reducing the wealth gap and providing economic security — without the hefty price tag, all while creating labor supply in much-needed industries. Thus, it is my belief, alongside Carpenter and Hamilton’s, that there is no substitute for the Federal Jobs Guarantee’s “poverty-combatting, nation-stabilizing, and infrastructure-building potential.”
Works Cited
Carpenter, Daniel and Darrick Hamilton. “A Federal Job Guarantee: Anti-Poverty and Infrastructure Policy for a Better Future.” Scholars Strategy Network, 30 Apr. 2020.
Castro, Daniel. “Taxing Robots Would Hurt, Not Help, American Workers.” Center for Data Innovation, 9 June 2023.
Devarajan, Shantayanan. “Development Policy in the Populist Era.” Brookings, 13 Jan. 2020.
Smith, Talmon Joseph. “American Wealth Is at a Record High. Sentiment Is Low, and Falling.” The New York Times, 31 Mar. 2025.
“Universal Basic Income: Potential and Limitations from a Gender Perspective.” UN Women, 2020.