Universal basic income as a 'fix' for poverty/unemployment seems to get passed around now and again in the west, but doesn't seem to ever have even a remote chance of being implemented outside of limited 'test' cases. The primary argument I often hear against UBI is that it is that if your basic needs are taken care of, there is no longer an incentive to work/contribute to society. Depending on how many people 'opt out' of working in comparison to the ones actually paying for UBI, there's the distinct possibility that such a system would go bankrupt over time as well.
Which brings me to 'why doesn't the government act as the employer of last resort' IE: a Job Guarantee program? The only historical examples that come to mind are the depression era "New Deal", or more recent, but not implemented https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphrey-Hawkins_Full_Employment_Act (In the united states), and workhouses (In the UK).
It seems like this would be something that would appeal to a wider swath of the voting public, welfare in the form of working more palatable than a straight handout for most conservative voters that I've spoken with.
To my knowledge, neither of the major parties in the United States at least are pushing for anything like this, and I'm not familiar enough with other country's political parties to say if that's true elsewhere. However, I see far more discourse in regards to UBI, and can't remember the last time a policy like the above has been mentioned in the news for example.
It seems more of a dichotomy between no strings welfare, and 'ask for voluntary charity'. Is there some tangible reason that this middle of the road solution doesn't seem to have gained any traction, some powerful interest that lobbies hard against it?