🔍 Read the full analysis: What We Could Lose When AI Does Our Work, According To 8,234 Workers on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get smart everyday buys 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 survey of 8,234 working-age adults in four countries found that about one in five would not quit their job even for guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary, with benefits preserved. The preprint’s author argues that work can provide purpose, community and status that cash may not replace, but the results are self-reported and do not establish how people would act in real life.
A survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the United Kingdom, United States, Denmark and India found that about one in five 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 finding is part of a new, not-yet-peer-reviewed arXiv preprint examining whether money can replace the purpose, social ties and recognition people say they get from work.
The paper, What is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI, was posted on October 29, 2026. Its sole author, Julian Jacobs, is affiliated with the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind. The survey was conducted online by polling organization More in Common in June and July, with national quotas for age, gender, education and region. The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind and that its views do not necessarily represent Oxford or the company.
In the survey’s hypothetical offer, respondents were asked whether they would voluntarily quit at successive guaranteed-income levels, beginning at 60% of their current salary and rising in 10-point steps to 120%. By an offer of 80% of salary, a slight majority said they would leave; around three in four said they would leave at 100%. Among those who accepted an offer, the median point at which they said they would quit was 70% of salary, and the average was 76%.
At 120%, the share who said they would stay was similar across income groups: 21% among low-income, 18% among middle-income and 22% among high-income respondents. The paper also grouped respondents by the job values they prioritized. Among classifiable respondents, 33% were primarily motivated by the work itself, such as purpose or learning; 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 non-monetary reason first.
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 Cash May Not Replace
The findings bear on debate about how workers might be supported if AI reduces demand for some jobs. The paper’s author argues that income support, including a basic income, may be necessary during an AI-related labor shock but could fail to replace everything people value in employment. That is an interpretation of survey answers, not evidence that a specific income policy would fail.
The results also complicate the idea that the main response to job loss is simply to replace wages. Respondents described work as a source of purpose, learning, social connection and recognition, as well as income. For employers and policymakers, the issue is whether those non-pay benefits can be found outside paid work, and what happens when people lose access to them. The survey does not test interventions or measure outcomes after job loss, so it cannot answer those questions directly.
The differences in willingness to leave were measurable but modest after the paper’s statistical controls. Depending on the method, people categorized as purpose-driven asked for about 1.9 to 5.8 percentage points more guaranteed income than people primarily motivated by pay. The paper equates that range to roughly $1,100 to $3,500 a year for someone earning $60,000. These are modeled comparisons from survey responses, not observed wage demands or actual decisions.
Products Worth Considering
Dell UltraSharp 27 Thunderbolt Hub Monitor (U2726DER)
Apple iPad Air (2025) 13‑inch Wi‑Fi 256 GB – Space Gray (M3 chip)
Logitech MX Brio Ultra HD 4K Webcam, Graphite
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Survey Tested Work Values
Jacobs used a nine-item survey battery to classify respondents according to what mattered to them in a job, including pay, benefits, purpose, learning, contribution to society, belonging, social contact and status. The study then compared those profiles with answers to the guaranteed-income question, as well as respondents’ views about AI and politics. Its analysis uses cross-sectional regressions with controls including income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time work and country.
The paper also reports differences in perceived exposure to AI: 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 workers. Those figures reflect respondents’ expectations, not a forecast of actual job losses.
The work is a 39-page version-one preprint in arXiv’s general economics category, rather than a peer-reviewed journal article. The four online samples included 2,032 respondents in Denmark, 2,072 in India, 2,052 in the UK and 2,078 in the US. The author cautions that the Indian sample was younger, more urban and more educated than the country’s population overall, limiting how broadly its results can be applied.
“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 Hypothetical Answers
The survey records what people said they would do under a hypothetical offer; it does not track whether they would actually quit or how their choices might change with real financial, family or workplace circumstances. The results therefore do not establish how workers would behave if their jobs were automated or a guaranteed-income program became available.
The preprint has not been peer-reviewed, and the author says later versions could change the numbers. Its political findings are also limited: while purpose- and community-oriented respondents became more pessimistic when they expected AI to harm jobs in their industry, the paper’s tables found no significant differences between the work-value groups in populist vote intention. The study does not show that job disruption causes a particular political response.
It is also unclear how well the survey categories capture the range of reasons people work, or whether the patterns hold beyond the four countries and the samples surveyed. The paper does not establish what kinds of community, purpose or recognition people might build outside employment.
Peer Review and Further Evidence
The immediate next step is further scrutiny of the preprint’s methods and findings. The paper is at version one, and its figures may change in later versions; no peer-reviewed publication is reported in the source material. Any revised analysis could clarify how the work-value categories were constructed and how robust the comparisons are.
To assess what work provides in practice, future research would need evidence beyond a one-time survey, such as following workers who experience job loss or changes in employment. For now, the study offers a snapshot of what respondents say they value and how they answer a hypothetical income offer—not a prediction of how AI will change employment or proof that a particular policy can replace the social and personal roles of work.
Key Questions
What did the survey find about quitting for guaranteed income?
Respondents were offered guaranteed income in steps from 60% to 120% of their current salary, with health coverage, pension and paid leave preserved. A slight majority said they would leave by 80% of salary; about three in four said they would leave at 100%. About one in five said they would stay at 120%.
Who conducted the research?
The paper was written by Julian Jacobs, affiliated with the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind. More in Common fielded the online survey in June and July 2026. The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind.
Does the study prove that a basic income cannot replace work?
No. The author argues that income support may not replace non-monetary benefits such as purpose and community, but the study relies on stated answers to hypothetical questions. It does not test a basic-income program or measure what happens to people after leaving work.
Has the paper been peer-reviewed?
No peer review is reported. The paper was posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026, as a version-one preprint, and the source says its numbers could change in later versions.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
