The article glosses over the main positives and invents a negative with universal income (UI).

The big positive is that is is a big safety net that allows everyone to take economic risks with fear of starving.  Whether you have a great business idea or a better job opportunity that requires you to unroot, you'll survive even if it doesn't work out.  The current safety nets have time delays and hurdles that could leave you hanging.  That's also true if you don't have a job, could get poor one, but would be worse off with lost benefits.

His invented negative is that UI would allow capitalists to lay off marginal workers and lobby against public education and medicine.  I don't see the link.  Our current system doesn't link employer EI premiums with claim history, so how is UI different in this regard.  Also, our current public education and health systems are justified as being economically efficient as well (proven by the huge premiums US employers pay by comparison).