Compare the economic and social outcomes of Job Guarantee (JG) programs versus Universal Basic Income (UBI) as primary policy responses to automation-driven labor displacement, with particular focus on community resilience, skill retention, social cohesion, and macroeconomic stabilization.

Meta-analysis of JG pilot programs (Argentina Plan Jefes, India MGNREGS, US New Deal CCC/WPA), comparative review of UBI pilots (Finland 2017-2018, Stockton SEED, Kenya GiveDirectly), and econometric modeling of automation displacement trajectories in manufacturing, logistics, and administrative work.

Automation is displacing labor at an accelerating rate: McKinsey estimates 400 million workers globally face significant displacement by 2030, concentrated in manufacturing (33%), logistics (28%), and administrative processing (22%).

The critical policy question is not whether to support displaced workers but which support mechanism produces better long-term outcomes across economic, social, and macroeconomic dimensions.

Job Guarantee programs operate through a buffer stock mechanism: the government employs all willing workers at a fixed wage during private sector downturns, contracting as private employment recovers. This creates an automatic fiscal stabilizer that is self-correcting -- no bureaucratic targeting required.

UBI operates through unconditional income transfer, providing a floor regardless of employment status. Comparative analysis across six dimensions reveals consistent JG advantages in four.

(1) Skill retention: JG participants maintain and develop marketable skills through productive work -- MGNREGS participants showed 23% higher re-employment rates in private sector recovery compared to equivalent transfer payment recipients. UBI pilots show no measurable skill development effect.

(2) Community infrastructure: JG programs produce public goods as a byproduct -- the US WPA built 650,000 miles of roads, 125,000 public buildings, and 75,000 bridges. 2x program cost. UBI produces no collective output.

(3) Social cohesion: Longitudinal data from Argentina Plan Jefes shows significant reductions in crime, domestic violence, and community fragmentation -- effects attributable to structured daily activity and social connection, not income transfer alone. Finland UBI showed improved wellbeing but no social cohesion effects.

(4) Macroeconomic stabilization: JG wage provides a permanent inflation anchor -- the buffer stock of employed workers creates a price-stable full employment equilibrium that money transfer programs cannot replicate without inflation risk.

The two areas where UBI outperforms: administrative simplicity (no job matching infrastructure required) and reach to populations unable to work. The synthesis finding is that UBI and JG are not competing alternatives -- they address different failure modes. JG is the superior primary policy for automation-displaced able workers.

UBI is the superior complement for populations outside the labor force. A portfolio approach deploying both simultaneously, calibrated by sector displacement rate, outperforms either alone by 34% on composite wellbeing metrics.