🔍 Read the full analysis: Why Do We Work? A New Survey Explores What AI Could Change on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on monitors, keyboards and dev gear
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
A preprint analyzing a survey of 8,234 working-age adults in four countries finds that most respondents would leave their jobs for guaranteed income below their current salary, but about one in five said they would stay even at 120% of pay. The findings suggest that workers value purpose, relationships and recognition alongside compensation, but the study is based on stated preferences and has not been peer-reviewed.
A survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, United States, Denmark and India found that about one in five would not leave a job even for guaranteed income equal to 120% of their current salary, with benefits preserved. The finding comes from a non-peer-reviewed arXiv preprint by Julian Jacobs of the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, which examines what work provides beyond pay as artificial intelligence could reshape jobs.
The study’s central question was whether people would voluntarily quit if they received a guaranteed income and kept health coverage, pension benefits and paid leave. Respondents considered offers rising from 60% of their current salary to 120%, in steps of 10%. By an offer of 80%, a slight majority said they would leave; at 100%, about three-quarters would. Among those who accepted an offer, the median point at which they would quit was 70% of salary, and the average was 76%.
The remaining group did not vary much by income in the survey: 21% of low-income respondents, 18% of middle-income respondents and 22% of high-income respondents said they would stay at 120%. The paper also classified respondents by their leading work values. Among those it could classify, 33% were mainly 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 reports that 73.7% put a non-financial reason first.
Jacobs also reports differences in perceived exposure to AI: 40% of white-collar workers said AI was at least somewhat likely to replace their job within ten years, compared with 29% of manual and service workers. The survey was conducted online by More in Common in June and July 2026, with national quotas for age, gender, education and region. The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, Jacobs’s employer, and that its views do not necessarily reflect those 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
What Income Cannot Measure
The findings matter to debates about how governments and employers might respond if AI reduces demand for some kinds of labor. A guaranteed income could replace wages, but the survey suggests some people may also value purpose, social connection, learning and recognition that they associate with work. Jacobs argues that a basic income may be needed in an AI-driven labor shock yet may not compensate fully for those non-financial benefits.
That conclusion is an interpretation of survey answers, not evidence that a basic income would fail in practice. The study measures what respondents say they would do in a hypothetical offer, rather than observing people making real decisions. Its estimates also point to relatively modest differences between groups: after controls, purpose-driven respondents required roughly 1.9 to 5.8 percentage points more guaranteed income to quit than respondents primarily motivated by pay, depending on the model used. The paper’s example translates that range to about $1,100 to $3,500 a year for someone earning $60,000.
For employers, the results raise a practical question: if job tasks change, can organizations retain valued aspects of work even as automation alters responsibilities? For policymakers, they suggest that income support and the social roles of workplaces are related but separate issues. The survey does not establish which policies would work or how workers would respond to actual job losses.
Popular right now
Samsung 85-Inch QN70H Neo QLED 4K Smart TV (2026)
Bose QuietComfort Ultra Wireless Noise-Cancelling Headphones with Spatial Audio, Black
Ninja CREAMi 7-in-1 Ice Cream Maker, NC299AMZ
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, single-author paper by Jacobs, affiliated with the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, and has not been peer-reviewed. The survey included 2,032 respondents in Denmark, 2,072 in India, 2,052 in the UK and 2,078 in the US.
Alongside the guaranteed-income exercise, respondents answered questions about job values, how they might spend their time if they stopped working, perceived AI-related job threats and political attitudes. The researchers used cross-sectional statistical models with controls including income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time work and country. The design can identify associations in the responses, but it cannot establish that work values cause particular attitudes or behavior.
The paper reports that the share primarily motivated by the work itself was similar across household-income groups—32% among low-income respondents, 33% among middle-income respondents and 34% among high-income respondents. It was also about a third among craft and trade workers. Those results challenge the idea that valuing purpose is limited to people with higher incomes, though they remain subject to the survey’s sampling and classification methods.
“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, in the preprint
Limits of the Hypothetical Offers
The survey records stated intentions under a hypothetical scenario, not actual decisions to leave work or live on guaranteed income. Respondents may answer differently when faced with real expenses, uncertain future payments, family responsibilities or a specific job offer. The results also do not show how a universal basic income would affect employment, well-being or labor markets.
The paper has not been peer-reviewed, and its estimates could change in later versions. The India sample was younger, more urban and more educated than the country as a whole, according to the source account, limiting how confidently that country’s results can be generalized. The study’s political analysis is also limited: the reported tables do not show significant differences in populist vote intention between the work-value groups, and the paper itself cautions that the analysis is relational rather than causal.
It remains unclear how the survey’s categories capture mixed motives, since people can value pay, purpose and colleagues at the same time. The study also does not establish whether the reported AI job-replacement expectations will match actual changes in employment over the next decade.
Peer Review and Further Evidence
The next step is for the preprint to receive scrutiny from other researchers and, potentially, to be revised. Because the paper is an early version, readers should treat its estimates as provisional rather than settled findings. Future versions may refine the survey measures, models or interpretation.
Further evidence would need to test whether stated preferences predict real choices, and whether the results hold in broader and more representative samples. Longitudinal research could track workers as jobs change or disappear, while evaluations of actual income-support programs could assess whether financial payments replace wages without replacing the social or psychological functions people associate with work. For now, the study offers a snapshot of what respondents say they value—not a forecast of how AI will change employment or a policy verdict on basic income.
Key Questions
What did the survey find about guaranteed income?
About one in five respondents said they would stay in their job even if guaranteed income reached 120% of their current salary and benefits remained intact. Most said they would leave at a lower offer; about three-quarters would leave at 100% of salary.
Who took part in the survey?
The online survey included 8,234 working-age adults: 2,032 in Denmark, 2,072 in India, 2,052 in the UK and 2,078 in the United States. More in Common fielded it in June and July 2026.
Has the study been peer-reviewed?
No. The paper was posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026 as a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed. Its findings and estimates may change in later versions.
Does the study prove that basic income cannot replace work?
No. The paper argues that income may not compensate for every benefit associated with work, but it relies on hypothetical survey responses. It does not test a real basic-income program or establish how people would behave after actual job changes.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
