Scott Alexander argues strongly for basic income over basic jobs guarantees, citing numerous advantages of basic income and potential pitfalls of basic jobs programs.
Longer summary
Scott Alexander argues strongly against the idea of a basic jobs guarantee, preferring a basic income guarantee instead. He presents 11 main arguments: 1) Basic jobs don't help the disabled, 2) They don't help caretakers, 3) They don't help parents, 4) Jobs are actually a big cause of poverty, 5) Basic jobs may not pay for themselves through useful work, 6) It's hard to deal with bad workers in a basic jobs system, 7) It's hard for workers to escape bad workplaces, 8) Basic income could fix private industry while basic jobs could destroy it, 9) Basic income supports personal development while basic jobs prevent it, 10) Basic income puts everyone on the same side while basic jobs preserve class divisions, and 11) Work itself is often unpleasant and meaningless. He then addresses counterarguments, including concerns about UBI's effects, the need for work to provide meaning, and the potential benefits of public works. Scott concludes that while basic jobs might be better than nothing, they risk hijacking the utopian potential of basic income and perpetuating many problems of the current system.
Shorter summary