Maybe there is another way to distribute a UBI other than a government program. To me the issue is not weather we are going to need something like this in the future it is how do we limit corruption. And adding another layer to a already burdened state is less than ideal.
I hope that there is a free market solution involving data as a commodity. The gains that will be made in efficiency are mind boggling. These gains wouldn't be possible without large data collection. If companies paid what the true price of the data is directly to the people who own it through another private institution, cutting out the middle man, it could make the process more efficient and would avoid the whole tax scheme.
I'm hopeful.

Simple..you can't make one shoe for all feet.

I’m not sure UBI is the solution but as a society we do need to how people on the lower end of the intelligence range make a living,

I’ve been a production manager for the last 20 years, the company has 100 employees with an average pay of close $20/hr. Over the years many of our employees that could, physically, do the job, could not use the new tech required efficiently, thus making them unemployable.

For everyone that says they’ll just have to trained to do another job, I would have to say most of you have never had to train an unskilled person.

Andrew Yang is wrong about Universal Basic Income (UBI).

Him comparing UBI to a dividend from the government is an example that he has a wrong understanding of economy: Dividends are from profits, and government is not a means of production that makes a profit.

Another evidence of Yang being so ignorant about economy is him citing Jeff Bezos' Amazon not paying much taxes as a reason for why Value Added Tax (VAT) should be posed on America, saying that Amazon run by Bezos would by paying more taxes with VAT. Well... First of all, companies don't pay sales tax, the consumer does. And, whatever portion of tax companies at the production stage needs to pay under VAT, the companies will just increase the price to consumers for it.

Actually, Amazon and Bezos is a primary example of why we should not have VAT. The reason Amazon does not pay much tax percentage wise is not because Amazon is greedy. It's because of aggressive investment and expansion strategy, Amazon is currently run at a low profit margin. Also, VAT is a sales tax, a most complicated one and it has the highest rate, and sale taxes are not paid by merchants like Amazon. It's a tax merchants collect from customers like us. So, under Yang's idea, we as a customer get an effective income reduction because we are going to be the ones paying VAT.

It appears that his idea comes from not understanding what money is in economics. Distributing money is not distributing wealth. "We can give jobless people free money because robots that replaced those people creates wealth." is fundamentally ignorant about how economy works. Whatever UBI that is given to those jobless people has to come from tax. That means tax needs to be increased. However, it's not like those robots that replaced the workers are creating more wealth to make up for it. Those robots are there so it can allow the car company to be more competitive in price.

So, that results in more taxing on an economy where there is no actual increase in its net worth.

Also, Yang's claim about Milton Friedman supporting his idea of UBI is not true at all. Friedman's idea was that of Negative Income Tax, and that is very different from Yang's idea of Universal Basic Income, neither does it serve the same purpose.

Yang also claims his welfare program would increase jobs, right after claiming that he is justifying UBI based on his claim that those jobs are not available due to AI and machine is replacing humans. Money does not equal wealth. The government merely forcing more flow of currency by giving out $1000 a months to everyone does not create wealth.

Yang is also ignoring the factor that everyone having $1000 more increasing demand and raising cost of living. He is selling a fantasy story where people earn more, but somehow miraculously the industry does not raise prices accordingly.

Yang also proposes to make revenue for this program by Value Added Tax (VAT). VAT is at the top of among the worst ideas of taxation ever.

First of all, VAT kills productivity because instead of only taxing the sale of the end product, it taxes stages of the production process. This makes tax calculation very complex compared to just adding certain percentage of sales tax at the final sale to consumers. Also, the burden of tax added at every stage of production is all passed on to the consumers.

Second, VAT is a REGRESSIVE TAX. In states like U.K., an example of some of the “advanced countries” Yang spoke about where there is VAT, common people at low income looking for cars are forced to pay 20% of the car price as tax. It's not just cars. Generally VAT for most stuff there is at 20%. That means effectively a 20% income reduction, in addition to the burden of income tax and other existing taxes. Every consumer has to pay the same high rate, so this type of tax hits the low income people the hardest.

For countries that have VAT, they usually have a very high tax rate. EU for example set a minimum of 15% VAT for its European member countries, and each member can tax higher, but not lower.

While it sounds like a positive thing, conceivably there are points to be concerned about, namely if such would be forced upon small businesses and the implications from such. I'm not in favor of it.