🔍 Read the full analysis: 8,234 Workers Ask What Work Is For As AI Moves Into The Workplace on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on tech for your team
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
A preprint based on an online survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, US, Denmark and India finds about 20% would not quit even for guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary. The author argues that money may not replace the meaning, relationships and recognition people get from work, but the findings rely on stated preferences and do not show how workers would behave in an actual AI-driven job loss.
A new unreviewed arXiv preprint based on a survey of 8,234 working-age adults finds that about one in five respondents would not leave their job even if offered guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary. The study, by Julian Jacobs of the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, examines what workers value beyond pay as artificial intelligence raises concerns about employment.
The paper, What Is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI, was posted on October 29, 2026. Its online survey was conducted in June and July by polling organization More in Common, with respondents in the United Kingdom, United States, Denmark and India. The study has not been peer-reviewed, and its figures may change in later versions.
In the survey’s hypothetical offer, respondents were asked whether they would voluntarily quit for guaranteed income, with healthcare, pension and paid leave retained. Offers rose in steps from 60% to 120% of current salary. A slight majority said they would leave at 80% of pay; around three in four would do so at full salary. At 120%, about 20% still said they would stay. These are reported answers to a scenario, not observations of actual job decisions.
The paper also groups respondents by their stated work priorities. Among those it 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 reports that 73.7% put a non-financial reason first. The author says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, his employer, and states that the views do not necessarily reflect the positions of Oxford or DeepMind.
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
Why Pay May Not Replace Work
The findings speak to a question facing workers, employers and policymakers: if AI reduces demand for some kinds of labor, can income support make up for the loss of a job? Jacobs argues that work can provide purpose, social ties and recognition as well as a paycheck, so a basic income may not replace everything people value in employment. That is the author’s interpretation of survey responses, not a demonstrated outcome of an AI-related layoff.
The results also complicate the idea that work’s non-financial value belongs mainly to affluent professionals. The reported share motivated primarily by the work itself was 32% among lower-income respondents, 33% among middle-income respondents and 34% among higher-income respondents. The paper also reports a figure of about one-third among craft and trade workers. If those patterns hold, changes to work could affect people’s sense of contribution and belonging across income groups, not only their earnings.
At the same time, the hypothetical offer suggests that many respondents would choose to stop working for less than their current pay if income were secure. The tension matters for debates over automation: some people may welcome income security without a job, while others may want paid work or its social and personal benefits to remain available. The study does not establish which response would prevail in a real labor-market shock.
Products Worth Considering
Apple MacBook Air 13-inch with M5 chip, 16GB memory, 1TB SSD, and 12MP Center Stage camera (Midnight)
Apple MacBook Air 15-inch (2026) with M5 chip, 16GB memory, 512GB SSD, Silver
Amazon Kindle Scribe Colorsoft 64GB (1st Generation)
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Survey Tested Work Values
The research uses a nine-item questionnaire about job priorities, including pay, benefits, purpose, learning, social contribution, belonging, meeting people and status. Responses were organized into four “Work Values Profiles”. Participants were also asked how they might spend their time if they stopped working, alongside questions about AI’s effects on jobs and political views.
The sample comprised 2,032 people in Denmark, 2,072 in India, 2,052 in the UK and 2,078 in the US. The survey used national quotas for age, gender, education and region. The paper notes that the Indian online sample was younger, more urban and more educated than India’s population overall, limiting how readily that country’s result can be generalized.
On AI exposure, the paper reports that 40% of white-collar workers 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 measure respondents’ expectations, not a forecast of actual job losses. The paper’s statistical analyses are cross-sectional and use controls including income, occupation, age, gender, education, work hours and country.
“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, paper author
Limits of the Stated Responses
The survey records what respondents say they would do under a hypothetical guaranteed-income offer; it cannot show whether they would actually quit, or how they would respond to job loss caused by AI. The paper is a 39-page preprint that has not been peer-reviewed, and its estimates could change. The source material does not establish whether later versions or independent replications will confirm the findings.
The study also does not show that AI will replace the jobs respondents fear losing. Its reported AI figures are beliefs about the likelihood of replacement within ten years. The author finds that purpose- and community-oriented respondents become more pessimistic when they expect AI to harm jobs in their industry, but says the analysis is relational rather than causal. The paper’s tables, according to the source account, do not show significant differences between the work-value groups in populist vote intention.
It is also unclear how well the results represent each country’s full working-age population, particularly given the characteristics of the Indian online sample. The source material does not provide enough detail to independently assess all survey design choices or the sensitivity of results to alternative classifications.
Peer Review and Further Evidence
The immediate next step is for the preprint to receive scrutiny from researchers and, if pursued, peer review. Later versions may revise its methods or estimates. Independent surveys and studies that track workers over time could test whether stated preferences match real decisions when people face automation, job loss or new income support.
For now, the results offer a snapshot of attitudes in four countries, not a prediction of what AI will do to employment or proof that a basic income would fail. Readers should distinguish the survey’s reported preferences from the author’s argument about what those preferences mean for the future of work.
Key Questions
What did the survey find about leaving work?
About three in four respondents said they would leave for guaranteed income equal to their current salary. About one in five said they would still stay at 120% of salary, with benefits retained. These were hypothetical responses.
Who took part in the survey?
The online survey covered 8,234 working-age adults in Denmark, India, the UK and the US. It was conducted by More in Common in June and July 2026.
Does the paper show that AI will replace these workers?
No. It reports workers’ views about the likelihood of their jobs being replaced within ten years. Those responses are expectations, not measured job losses or a forecast.
Has the research been peer-reviewed?
No. The paper was posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026, as a preprint. Its findings have not yet been peer-reviewed and may change.
What does the author say about basic income?
Jacobs argues that basic income may be needed during an AI-related labor shock but might not replace the purpose, relationships or recognition some people get from work. That is an interpretation of survey answers, not evidence from an actual basic-income program or AI displacement event.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
