We have never seen this hyperinflation effect from low unemployment
When have you seen low unemployment? Have you ever seen 1% unemployment or a labor shortage in full?
So show me this 1% unemployment society with the problems you claim it'll have.
Let me break down the problems with the model you provide here. First, there's no evidence for your assertion that extremely low unemployment rates will have any significant effect on an economy aside from making it rather hard to fill jobs. There is some inflation effect, but it is an order of magnitude or more lower than anything you've claimed so far. There is a lot of elasticity in the job market and it's just not going to massively overconsume existing labor unless some urgent need or disaster comes up (like a meter of volcanic ash suddenly appears on the Midwest and the US needs food badly).
Second, your "universal social security" scheme is just not that awesome. We already have a number of similar programs throughout the world which should have similar effects. They act more like friction for the economy than somehow generating decades of economic growth in a short span of time. Again, another key lack of evidence.
Third, there's no linkage between having such a program and the problems you claim will happen. Why would demand for human labor suddenly jump massively just because wealth is being redistributed? There isn't really that much change in the economy. Poor people are just a somewhat bigger sliver. Nor is their spending somehow magic.
Finally, you have the opposite of a solution - doing exactly what it takes to make the problem worse, doesn't fix the problem.
Again: Imagine if $1,000,000,000,000 per year were dumped into the economy. Salaries don't go up, so the cost of goods isn't increased. Your employer still pays $50,000 to have you at your desk, but somehow you take home $6,000 more throughout the year, and NOBODY ELSE IS $6,000 POORER to get that money into your hands. Inflation doesn't make this go away: it's divided up as a fixed, scalar proportion of the money supply (17% of all income), and so e.g. 10% inflation means $1,100,000,000,000 more money is landing in people's paychecks, plus the 10% increase in their income they're already getting.
I've already covered printing money as a source of hyperinflation. That has nothing to do with the employment rate as Zimbabwe has so amply demonstrated.
Does that sound like anything that's ever happened in history to you? The total mobilized spending money is about $1.8 trillion, if you count money that's actually displaced (i.e. that this policy moves out of one person's hands and into the hands of another, notably giving poor people money to spend). That's 11.6% of all income absolutely, and 17% of all taxable income after deductions (including business income). Name one time something like that happened *permanently*, such that any inflation or increase in production would proportionally be reflected in the increased spending power (i.e. that if there's inflation, the amount of extra dollars you get to spend increases by that much, too).
I believe global public entitlements are about an order of magnitude bigger than that. If something awesome was going to happen, we'd see it by now.
My take is that a universal basic income scheme will just be another sort of mild friction in the economy. It takes wealth from people who were doing something really productive and gives it to people who are somewhat less productive. My expectations concerning such a scheme are that it's more something to keep people from starving and/or rioting rather than something that will have a significant benefit or change to the economy's systems.
And as long as you aren't printing money, there should be little to no inflationary effect from the scheme.