One smart bread merchant will probably say "Hey I used to sell this for $1.50, I can do better than $100" and prices it at $90. Now everyone buys bread from him.

The other merchants feel the price pressure and the cycle continues, with the price settling down to something likely higher than $1.50 (to reflect the increased price of labor input as a result of basic income) but not so high that it totally eats the increased income.

So yes, things will cost more after basic income (after all you'd likely need some sort of inflation to find the money to give away). But in an efficient market they will not cost so much more than people are not still effectively richer than they were before. It does not change the intrinsic value of most things, it just makes certain inputs (namely labor) more expensive.

So while it's very likely that the cost of housing will increase in this situation, again I think people will still be better off overall. People will have increased purchasing power for non-housing goods and still pay the same percentage of their income for housing, even if that is now a percentage of a larger number.

No, its not. Real estate -- including housing -- is very much driven by value, and for most real estate -- and definitely housing -- and key component of value is location.

> That's why in SF it seems that housing prices rise in lock step with wages in the dominant industry (tech).

Convenience to work of a given pay is a key component of the value of housing; its not priced according to what the buyer can pay, its priced according to value, and the buyers are the ones who can pay that value.

Anything that isn't provided by a freely competitive market can be like this in the long term, and anything where the supply side can't quickly respond to demand-side changes can be like it in the short term.

Yes, UBI in most of its incarnations is a deliberately engineered inflationary spiral - a one way ticket to Venezuela. Everyone simply ignores the issue.