One major challenge is the very high cost of implementing either of these programs nationwide. Providing a basic income that allows people to live above the poverty line could cost trillions of dollars per year. For example, one study estimated that a universal basic income of $12,000 per adult in the U.S. would cost around $3 trillion annually. Implementing a jobs guarantee with living wages could also cost over $500 billion per year. Finding sufficient public funding on this scale would be extremely difficult and require massive tax increases.

Ballooning government spending on either program could strain public finances and substantially increase budget deficits if tax revenue does not increase significantly as well. Very large increases in taxes would be difficult politically and could have unintended economic consequences by reducing private consumption, business investment, and economic growth. Simply printing money to fund the programs would also risk high inflation by drastically increasing the money supply.

Means testing, residual benefit cliffs, or limiting the programs’ eligibility could help control costs but add complexity and potentially undermine the goals of universal coverage and providing an unconditional safety net. If benefits are too low, both programs may still leave many below the poverty line and fail to meaningfully improve economic security. But if benefits are too high, costs could rapidly escalate further. Striking the right balance with benefits would be very challenging.

There are also concerns that a universal basic income could reduce incentives for people to work, seek higher education, start businesses, or actively engage in the jobs market. While work requirements could be imposed for the jobs guarantee program, monitoring compliance and ensuring there are enough suitable jobs available would be difficult to implement effectively at a large national scale. Both programs could distort individual choices and labor market behaviors in ways that unintentionally undermine productivity, innovation, or longer-term economic growth.

Ensuring the programs do not drastically increase dependency on government support or cause “welfare traps” that discourage leaving public assistance is another challenge. While basic income supporters argue it increases individual autonomy and freedom, others argue it could undermine personal responsibility and self-sufficiency over time on a society-wide level. Effectively addressing these concerns through alternative policy designs would be complex task with many trade-offs to consider.

Administering either program in a sufficiently transparent, equitable manner nationwide would also require establishing an immense new bureaucracy and expanding the existing administrative state substantially. Determining eligibility criteria, tracking payments, monitoring job participation rates, preventing errors and fraud, and ensuring compliance could overwhelm existing agencies. Adapting payments over time based on evolving economic conditions would add yet more administrative complexity.

Geographic cost of living differences across states and regions would need to be taken into account for benefit levels to have similar purchasing power nationally as well. But large variances in payments between jurisdictions could face political opposition or seem unfair. Balancing equity concerns with local cost drivers would be very difficult at a national scale.

While universal basic income and jobs guarantee programs aim to tackle important social goals, implementing either one nationwide in the United States faces tremendous logistical, administrative, and fiscal challenges given the enormous population size and costs involved. Striking the right policy design with appropriate safeguards and controls to outweigh these challenges would require overcoming substantial hurdles. Success would depend on careful study and piloting of creative alternatives to scaling up versions of these ideas within existing public finance constraints. But the unprecedented nature of such large programs also means uncertainty about potential unintended consequences that could undermine their goals if not properly addressed.