UBI eliminates the last bargaining chip the masses have - labor. Without workers, there can be no strikes. With everyone dependent on the UBI for livelihood, nobody could afford to oppose the system.
This is what the "plutocrats" are after. Masses without a lever to organize.
I don't necessarily agree with the thesis, it's just that the article really doesn't get to the point.
The thing is, the rich only have the threat of violence then to keep poorer masses in check. Though there are many kinds of violence, disease, starvation, homelessness.
The thing is, without the dictates of the rich, there will be places they would be unable or unwilling to reach. There, a socialism of even purer kind could start given enough automation. The problem would be hydraulic despotism. Resources like water, oil, metals would be hard to get.
Much like what happened during French revolution.
UBI removes that risk.
I'm in favour of an UBI, but one that's really universal (rich and poor get the same amount of money, forever) and one that goes together with a real public system including public universal healthcare, public schools, public infrastructures - roads, railroads - and trasnportation, similar to the ones we have in many European countries, but improved.
He is also for universal healthcare. We already have public schools and roads, but perhaps I'm missing a larger point you are making here.
UBIs have to be universal (most proposals are not Universal, they are just Basic Incomes, Italy just created a fake one called "reddito di cittadinanza" literally translated as "citizen's income")
We may have public healthcare and schools, but most parts of the world, including the US, don't.
We also have universal public welfare, unemployment benefits, public housing, public transports, in Italy we also have mandatory car insurance, it means everybody has to pay for it, it also means that the prices are heavily regulated and must be affordable and - most of all - non discriminatory (you can't set a price based on personal data and background of the single client and there's an authority reviewing the methodology).
These are all things that in US don't exist or are seen as "socialist", hence bad.
If you add an UBI but don't fundamentally change the way the system works it won't make a difference, companies will just adjust the prices accordingly because more money will be in consumer's pockets (the market is always right! right?).
The only real point I can make is improving on the things that already work, just throwing money at problems won't solve problems.
If you assume prices work according to supply and demand, incorrect. The reason for this is that people also earn money from sources other than UBI.
To give an example, let's say I give every single person in the US, including children, $5. Will companies raise their prices accordingly? Maybe, but the difference in GDP is tiny. The difference in the purchasing power of the average 10 year old with no pocket money though, is vast, since they previously had $0 and now they have $5.
Similarly, UBI will probably result in price increases, but those will be less than the increase in purchasing power of those most in need of UBI.
I never said raise, but adjust.
Amazon will want those UBI money, they'll want you to spend money on their website instead of going to the dentist and we know they are good at it (too much if you ask me).
If the dentist is already paid by taxes, you could have both.