Andrew Yang's premise is that those low level jobs are increasingly being automated away anyway - meaning that no, we don't need people to do them.
Even without that premise, this argument presupposes that people receiving UBI will do so in exclusion to working. That doesn't really logically or practically follow; it's just as possible that people will work anyway because extra spending money is extra spending money. They'll work because they want to work, not because they're being actively coerced to work.
> This will happen along with price raises until an equilibrium is found where poor people need to work in order to survive.
With Yang's proposal, the "price raises" part is probably true, yes. However, that has nothing to do with UBI; instead, it has to do with VAT. VAT advocates oft insist that it's somehow "not a sales tax" and therefore "totally not regressive like a sales tax", but at the end of the day consumers are paying more than they otherwise would for goods - and since consumer spending is disproportionately higher (relative to income/wealth) for the working class than the ownership class (or low/middle v. high, if that's the terminology you prefer), that's going to have the same regressive tax effects.
However, a VAT ain't the only way...
> No need for narratives about landlords raising rent, though it is possible.
Not if the UBI is instead funded by taxing the unimproved value of land - a.k.a. a land value tax, or LVT. We Georgists tend to call that a "citizen's dividend", but it's just a special case of UBI: a basic income intended to compensate citizens for occupying less than their equal share of land value within a given jurisdiction. There are a lot of implications of this (I could go on and on about the economic efficiency and ethical justifications), but relevant to this conversation is that the lack of deadweight loss means replacing other taxes with LVT would if anything reduce the consumer-facing cost of goods by reducing the effective tax burden of those producing said goods.
> Anything that is outsourceable is now more appealing to outsource than before.
That has already happened, without UBI. UBI is if anything necessary because of outsourcing - again, because we don't need local people doing those particular low level jobs, because they're now being done overseas.
UBI also might even help correct outsourcing; it's a lot easier to start a business if you know that if it fails (like most businesses do) you won't be homeless and starving as a result, and that's exactly the sort of safety net that UBI enables.