It's something we need to move into, as a matter of social welfare. There's actually an argument (not very sound) that the United States is legally-required to implement something substantially-similar to the system I designed as soon as technically-feasible.
The ideal that we'll need some kind of UBI because of an upcoming crisis is rooted in a misunderstanding of economics. People think automation is a new thing and jobs go away forever; but it's just technical progress, the same as we've been doing for thousands of years. The threat comes when progress occurs too rapidly: if you create rapid unemployment, the slow replacement of jobs doesn't keep up, and you get high unemployment.
The only zero-job economy is a zero-labor utopia where humans do nothing. Flat out. As long as human hands are required somewhere in the process, there's no such thing as permanent job destruction. As well, new jobs range from highly-complex, heavily-specialized disciplines to pushing the buttons on the machines at the correct time; sometimes the sensors and probes aren't nearly as accurate as humans, or just cost a lot more. That's why things like injection-molded plastic forms are removed from the mold by hand and placed on a conveyor: a machine that can handle that job would be ridiculously-complex and unreliable; at the very least, it'd require thousands of hours of QA testing after retooling the IM to make a new form--or you just skip all that maintenance and extra QA and pay someone to do it by hand.
The nature of technology is also that it's invented as soon as it's envisioned in sufficient detail. It's in-production shortly after. People have romanticized about robots replacing 100% of all jobs since Karl Marx proposed it as an immediate, tomorrow-goal for society; then, they made machines and came up with new jobs doing the last bits of work finishing up after the machines--the robot does the job of a hundred men, and one man clears up their mistakes.
The corollary is we're constantly imagining all jobs will go away forever when we see a new technology (machines, trade, or materials--cotton is the bane of the sheep-shearers's union!). We can't imagine what new technology will appear tomorrow and how it will create jobs, because technology reduces labor requirements.
So what actually happens?
We reduce the labor involved, and the costs go down eventually--the relative cost of things is in constant turmoil, and the relative desirability of goods changes. Food has enormous competition. Every good competes with every other good--if you spend more of your money on food, you have less for iPads; if 2/3 of the price of iPads is actual costs and people are only willing-and-able to spend 3/4 of the price, then you need to lower the price (by 1/4, meaning the cost is now 8/9 of the price--an 11% margin instead of 33%). Instead of margins getting fatter and corporate profits soaring, corporate profits average the same marginal percent over the long term.
So people steadily get that spending power back. They then buy more stuff. That creates replacement jobs. If you've eliminated (over a wide time span) 50% of all required labor to make things, then costs are now only 50% as much; prices adjust in total to half of all income; and people now buy twice as many things. It takes half the working-hours to make the same, or the same working hours to make (and buy) twice as much.
Handwaving away all the economics bullshit, you can just state mathematically that a profit margin of X% implies paying wages of 100%-X%. Wages being what they are, the number of labor hours is mediated by how much money is spent. Reducing labor in one place means you have unspent money; you spend it elsewhere; suddenly there's labor there. This works over long timescales; your economy collapses if you replace a third of it with machines over the long weekend.
So, all of that. Yeah. Point?
I don't believe we're going to need to face up to a UBI in the future, in the sense that I don't believe society will collapse from catastrophic job loss and everyone will need free money. I believe the system I designed slows the transition onto technical progress by making human labor lower-cost, thus strengthening competition with lower-labor solution, without lowering take-home (spendable) wages. That means businesses take less risk waiting for automation solutions to come down in price (delaying for a competitive advantage of implementing even-cheaper automation later, at the cost of paying more for labor now); the variation in risk appetite and risk tolerance will lead some businesses to implement earlier and others later, whereas ramping up the cost of labor will cause the higher-risk players to hit their risk limits at the same time (i.e. earlier) as the lower-risk players.
A UBI is one way to avoid a transition like the Industrial Revolution (60% unemployment for THREE GENERATIONS), and instead get a transition like the Information Age (low employment, rapid job growth, rapid economic growth, and a high-speed evolution through generations of new technology and greater economic security--and occasional bitching about 6%-8% unemployment peaks that came a decade apart and lasted 2-3 years; the Great Recession of 2008 was pretty huge). It reduces the risk of a societal collapse in the way people fear one might occur, but that collapse isn't guaranteed anyway.
Other than that, it's also a lot more efficient than our current system--but only once we've got a wealthy-enough nation (which became a stable fact in 2013, in that we could do it while moving around no more money than we're already spending on welfare). Doing this in 1950 would have destroyed America.