https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/6/16036942/job-guarantee-explained There is no reason not to do this. The jobs wouldn't be the best paying, but they don't need to be "digging ditches" either. They can be a range of jobs from blue collar to white collar. They can provide health/dental/vision benefits, and they can be slotted into the existing pay structures used by the Feds or the State. They can be set up a "contract" style jobs so that people can come and go as they find employment in the private sector. The costs would be no more than 1.5 trillion in tax cuts that won't guarantee employment for all unemployed Americans anyway. And it's less of a handout if you actually have to earn it, as opposed to just handing corporations and individuals money simply because they meet some arbitrary criteria which is determined by politics or budget decisions. Another benefit is to pay for this program at times when unemployment might be higher, it would force the feds and the states to have set aside a solid rainy day fund. That is, in bad economic times, the government would use the cash reserve to offset the higher costs associated with an increased head count as the private sector lays people off. In better employment markets, the governments can provide job hunting services to move people off their payrolls and back into the private sector. Plus, it's a political win for the party that does this. Not just among their base, but it would reach across ideological lines and follow socioeconomic lines as polling has shown working class republicans support the idea of finding people work.
