🔍 Read the full analysis: Why Work Matters In The Age Of AI: Views From 8,234 Workers on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get the latest gadgets delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
TL;DR
A not-yet-peer-reviewed survey of 8,234 working-age adults in four countries found that about one in five respondents would not quit even if offered guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary. The preprint links that reluctance to nonfinancial parts of work, but its findings rely on stated responses and do not establish how people would act or how AI will affect employment.
A survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, US, Denmark and India found that about one in five would not quit even if offered guaranteed income equal to 120% of their current salary, with health coverage, pension and paid leave retained. The finding appears in a non-peer-reviewed arXiv preprint by Julian Jacobs of the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, which examines what workers say they value beyond pay as AI raises concerns about jobs.
The paper, What is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI, was submitted to arXiv on October 29, 2026. Its online survey was fielded by More in Common in June and July, with national quotas for age, gender, education and region. The sample included 2,032 respondents in Denmark, 2,072 in India, 2,052 in the UK and 2,078 in the US. The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, Jacobs’ employer, and that its views do not necessarily represent Oxford or DeepMind.
In the survey’s hypothetical income test, people were asked whether they would voluntarily leave their jobs for guaranteed income that rose in steps from 60% to 120% of their salary, while keeping healthcare, pension and paid leave. A slight majority said they would leave at 80% of salary; at 100%, about three in four said yes. Among respondents who accepted an offer, the median threshold was 70% of pay. At 120%, about 20% still said they would stay.
The authors also grouped respondents by their stated work priorities. Among those the researchers could classify, 33% were primarily motivated by the work itself, such as purpose, learning or contribution; 23% by colleagues and belonging; 17% by status and recognition; and 26% by pay and benefits. The paper’s figure says 73.7% put a nonfinancial reason first. These are survey classifications, not measures of observed behavior.
WHAT WORK IS FOR, ACCORDING TO WORKERS
Three in four put something other than pay first
The paper sorts workers by what they rate most important in their job. In its own figure, 73.7% of classified workers put a non-money reason first.
The work itself: purpose, learning, contributing to society.
Pay and benefits come first.
Belonging, colleagues, meeting people.
Recognition and prestige.
Pay-first share, by country
Share of classified workers whose top value is pay and benefits
Meaning is not a luxury
Share driven by the work itself (intrinsic), by household income third
Also about a third in craft and trade jobs (33%) and in services and sales (31%).
Shares of the 6,224 working respondents the paper could classify; 2,010 respondents (non-working, or no clear top value) were left out. 2,000 tied answers were assigned by a tie-break rule. Satisfied with their job: 81%.
Source: Jacobs, What is Work For?, arXiv:2610.39375v1, 29 Oct 2026 · preprint, not peer-reviewed · survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, US, Denmark and India by More in Common, June–July 2026, supported by Google DeepMind.
Powered by Thorsten Meyer AI
What Workers Value Beyond Pay
The results matter to debates about AI, job displacement and income support because they suggest that a wage replacement may not address every reason people value work. Jacobs argues that a basic income may be necessary if AI causes a labor-market shock, but could fail to replace work’s other functions, including purpose, learning and social connection. That is the author’s interpretation of respondents’ answers, not evidence that a particular income policy will fail.
The paper reports modest differences in the income respondents said they would require before quitting. After statistical controls, people categorized as purpose-driven requested about 1.9 to 5.8 percentage points more guaranteed income than those categorized as pay-driven, depending on the method used. At a $60,000 salary, the paper translates that range to roughly $1,100 to $3,500 a year. The result does not mean every purpose-driven worker would reject a cash payment or remain employed after automation.
The survey also found that 40% of white-collar respondents considered it at least somewhat likely that AI would replace their job within ten years, compared with 29% of manual and service workers. Those figures capture perceived risk, not a forecast of actual job losses. They offer a snapshot of worker expectations at a time when organizations are adopting AI tools, but do not show what will happen to employment in any occupation.
Popular right now
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Noise Cancelling Headphones, Sandstone
Samsung 85-Inch QN70H Neo QLED 4K Smart TV (2026)
Dyson V8 Cyclone Cordless Vacuum
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Survey Tested Work
The study combines questions about job values with a hypothetical choice: how much guaranteed income would persuade a respondent to stop working? Participants rated a set of job-related factors, including pay, benefits, purpose, learning, social contribution, belonging, relationships and status. Researchers used those answers to sort respondents into four “Work Values Profiles.” The survey also asked how people might spend their time, whether they saw AI as a threat to jobs and about political attitudes.
The analysis uses cross-sectional regressions, with controls for factors including income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time work and country. The paper reports that purpose- and community-driven respondents became more pessimistic when they expected AI to harm jobs in their industry. It also says the political findings are limited: its tables do not show significant differences between the profiles in populist vote intention.
The preprint’s status and sample design matter when interpreting the numbers. It is a 39-page version-one paper, not a peer-reviewed study, and its findings may change in later versions. The India sample, according to the source material, was younger, more urban and more educated than the country’s population as a whole, limiting how readily that country-level result can be generalized.
“A basic income “may indeed be necessary” in an AI labor shock, but “could ultimately fail to compensate workers” for what work gives beyond money.”
— Julian Jacobs, author of the preprint
Limits of Stated Worker Choices
The income test asks what respondents say they would do in a hypothetical situation. It does not track whether workers would actually leave a job, how employers might respond or whether benefits and income would remain secure in practice. The study therefore cannot show how people would behave under real job loss or whether guaranteed income could replace work’s social and personal roles.
The paper is also a preprint that has not been peer-reviewed. Its survey is cross-sectional, so associations do not establish cause and effect. The source material does not provide enough detail to assess every question’s wording, the extent of nonresponse or how representative the online samples are beyond the stated quotas. The political analysis is especially limited, and the reported lack of significant differences does not establish that work values have no political relationship.
Peer Review and Later Versions
The paper’s next major checkpoint is whether it is revised, submitted for peer review or published. Later versions could change its methods, classifications or results; the current source identifies the arXiv submission as version one. Readers should also look for fuller reporting on the survey instrument and sampling when evaluating how far the results apply to workers beyond the surveyed online samples.
For now, the study provides a snapshot of stated views rather than a forecast of AI-driven job losses or a test of basic-income policy. Follow-up research would need to observe people facing real changes in employment and income to test whether the preferences reported here predict choices outside a survey.
Key Questions
What did the survey find about quitting for guaranteed income?
About one in five respondents said they would stay even at an offer equal to 120% of their salary, with healthcare, pension and paid leave retained. A slight majority said they would leave at 80% of salary, and about three in four at 100%.
Who conducted the study, and when was it published?
The paper was written by Julian Jacobs of the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind and posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026. It is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed.
Does the study show that basic income cannot replace work?
No. The author argues that income support may not replace all the nonfinancial benefits people associate with work, but the survey uses hypothetical answers. It does not test a basic-income program or measure what recipients would do in practice.
How many workers think AI could replace their jobs?
In the survey, 40% of white-collar respondents said AI was at least somewhat likely to replace their job within ten years, compared with 29% of manual and service respondents. These are perceptions, not forecasts of actual displacement.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
