🔍 Read the full analysis: What Is Work For? A New Survey Of 8,234 Workers Asks What We Lose If AI Takes The Job 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 preprint analyzing an online survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, US, Denmark and India finds that most respondents would accept guaranteed income instead of a job, but about one in five would stay even at 120% of their current salary. The study links that reluctance to work’s non-financial roles, including purpose and belonging, while stressing that its findings are based on stated responses and do not establish cause and effect.
A new 8,234-person survey finds that about one in five workers would not leave their job even if offered guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary, with health coverage, pension and paid leave preserved. The result is reported in a not-yet-peer-reviewed arXiv preprint by Julian Jacobs of the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, which examines what people say work provides beyond a paycheck as artificial intelligence raises concerns about job displacement.
The online survey covered working-age adults in the UK, United States, Denmark and India. More in Common fielded it in June and July 2026, using national quotas for age, gender, education and region. Respondents were asked at successive levels of guaranteed income, from 60% to 120% of their current salary in ten-point steps, whether they would voluntarily quit while keeping specified benefits.
Across the four-country sample, a slight majority said they would leave by an offer worth 80% of salary; around three in four would leave at 100%. About 20% remained unwilling to quit at 120%. The preprint reports that this holdout share was similar across income groups: 21% among lower-income respondents, 18% in the middle-income group and 22% among higher-income respondents. Among those who accepted an offer, the median point at which they would quit was 70% of salary.
The paper also groups respondents by the reasons they value in a job. Among people 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 article reports that 73.7% named a non-financial reason first. These are categories based on survey answers, not observations of how respondents would behave after receiving an actual offer.
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 Pay May Not Replace
The findings speak to a policy problem that could grow if AI reduces demand for some kinds of labor: income support may address lost earnings, but it may not reproduce social connection, purpose, learning or recognition that some people associate with a job. Jacobs argues that a basic income may be needed in an AI-related labor shock, while also warning it could fail to compensate for work’s non-financial value. That is the author’s interpretation of stated preferences, not a measured result about the effects of an actual basic-income program.
The reported differences between work-value groups are measurable but limited. After statistical controls, respondents primarily motivated by purpose said they would require roughly 1.9 to 5.8 percentage points more guaranteed income to quit than those primarily motivated by pay, depending on the method used. At a $60,000 salary, the paper equates that range to about $1,100 to $3,500 a year. The result suggests that motivations matter, but it does not mean all purpose-driven workers would refuse a job-ending offer.
The survey also records concern about automation: 40% of white-collar respondents considered AI at least somewhat likely to replace their job within ten years, compared with 29% of manual and service workers. Those figures measure respondents’ expectations, not a forecast of job losses. They offer a snapshot of perceived exposure at a time when AI’s effects on employment remain uncertain.
Products Worth Considering
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Noise Cancelling Headphones, Sandstone
Samsung 27-inch Odyssey OLED G6 QD-OLED QHD Gaming Monitor
DJI Osmo Mobile 7P Phone Gimbal with Mic Mini Transmitter, Infinity Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Survey Tested Work
The preprint, titled What is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI, was posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026. It is a 39-page first version in the economics category and has not been peer-reviewed; the reported figures could change in later versions. The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, Jacobs’s employer, and states that its views do not necessarily reflect those of Oxford or DeepMind.
For the work-values profiles, respondents rated the importance of job features including pay, benefits, purpose, learning, social contribution, belonging, social contact and status. The survey also asked how participants would spend their time if they stopped working, alongside questions about AI and politics. The paper uses cross-sectional regression models with controls that include income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time work and country.
The survey’s country results vary. At the 120%-of-salary offer, the reported holdout share was 16.0% in the UK, 17.9% in the US and Denmark, and 28.8% in India. The paper notes that its Indian online sample was younger, more urban and more educated than the country as a whole, a limitation when interpreting that comparison. The author also says the analysis is “purely relational, not causal”.
““may indeed be necessary””
— Julian Jacobs, author of the preprint
Limits of the Evidence
The survey records hypothetical choices, not decisions made after workers received a real offer or lost a job. It therefore cannot establish how people would act under financial pressure, changing family needs or different labor-market conditions. Nor does it show whether income support can replace particular social or personal benefits associated with work.
The study is a preprint without peer review, and the source material does not report a later reviewed version. The online sample also has limitations, especially for interpreting the India results. Finally, while the paper examines links among work values, AI expectations and politics, its author says the analysis does not establish causation; the reported material does not show significant differences between work-value groups in populist vote intention.
Peer Review and Follow-Up
The next evidence milestone would be a revised or peer-reviewed version of the paper, if one is produced. Later work could test whether the survey patterns persist with different samples and methods, and whether stated preferences predict decisions when people face actual employment changes or income-support programs.
For now, readers should treat the results as a cross-sectional snapshot of what respondents said in mid-2026, not as a forecast of how many jobs AI will remove or proof that cash payments cannot replace work. The preprint does not establish a timetable for further publication or report a planned follow-up study.
Key Questions
What did the survey find about quitting for guaranteed income?
A slight majority of respondents said they would leave by an offer worth 80% of their salary, while about three in four would leave at 100%. Roughly one in five said they would still stay at 120%, with benefits preserved.
Who took part in the survey?
The survey included 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, US, Denmark and India. More in Common conducted it online in June and July 2026 using national quotas for several demographic measures.
Does the study prove that basic income cannot replace work?
No. The paper presents an argument that income may not replace non-financial aspects of work, but it relies on hypothetical survey responses. It did not test an actual basic-income program or measure the consequences of one.
Has the paper been peer-reviewed?
No. The work was posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026 as a first-version preprint. Its findings may be revised, and they should not be treated as peer-reviewed conclusions.
What did respondents say about AI replacing their jobs?
Forty percent 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 workers. These are respondents’ expectations, not predictions of actual job losses.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
