🔍 Read the full analysis: What Do We Lose If AI Takes Our Jobs? 8,234 Workers Share Their Views 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 analyzing 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 for guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary. The author says work can provide purpose, community and status as well as pay, but the survey records stated preferences, not real-world behavior, and the paper has not been peer-reviewed.
A survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, US, Denmark and India found that about one in five respondents would not quit even if offered guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary, with health coverage, pension and paid leave maintained. The finding is part of an October 29 arXiv preprint by Julian Jacobs of the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, which examines what workers say they value beyond wages as artificial intelligence raises questions about the future of jobs.
The survey presented respondents with a hypothetical offer to leave their jobs while keeping guaranteed income and benefits. The offer rose from 60% of current salary in steps of 10 percentage points, up to 120%. According to the paper, a slight majority would leave by the time the offer reached 80% of salary, around three-quarters would leave at 100%, and about 20% would still refuse at 120%. Among those who accepted an offer, the median point at which they said they would quit was 70% of salary.
The author grouped workers by the job values they rated most highly. Among respondents the paper 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% placed a non-financial reason first. The share naming the work itself was similar across household-income groups, at roughly one-third, according to its analysis.
Jacobs also examined views about AI and employment. The paper reports 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. In adjusted analyses, people motivated by purpose were estimated to require somewhat more guaranteed income to quit than those primarily motivated by pay. These are associations and survey responses, not evidence of how people would act if actually offered the money.
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 Income May Not Replace Work
The findings speak to a policy question facing governments and employers: if automation reduces demand for human labor, would replacing wages with cash compensate people for losing jobs? The paper suggests that respondents associate work with purpose, social ties and recognition, as well as income. That matters to debates about income support and job displacement because a cash payment may address lost earnings without supplying the relationships or structure some people say work gives them.
The results do not establish that those non-financial benefits will disappear when a job changes, or that a basic income would fail. The author argues that a basic income may be necessary during an AI-related labor shock but could be insufficient on its own to replace what work provides. That is an interpretation of the survey, not a tested policy outcome. The paper also reports that purpose- and community-oriented respondents become more pessimistic when they expect AI to harm jobs in their industry, while its tables do not show significant differences among the groups in populist vote intention.
Products Worth Considering
Bose Lifestyle Ultra Compact Wireless Smart Home Speaker Bundle, Black
Logitech MX Master 4 for Mac Wireless Ergonomic Mouse, White Silver
Bose QuietComfort Earbuds (2nd Gen) – True Wireless Bluetooth Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Survey Tested Work Values
The paper, titled What is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI, is a 39-page, single-author preprint by Jacobs. It was posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026, in General Economics. The online survey was conducted by More in Common in June and July 2026, with national quotas for age, gender, education and region. The sample included 2,032 adults in Denmark, 2,072 in India, 2,052 in the UK and 2,078 in the US.
Respondents rated job-related values including pay, benefits, purpose, learning, contribution to society, belonging, social contact and status. The study then assigned profiles and compared answers to the guaranteed-income question. Its statistical models controlled for factors including income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time work and country. The paper says its survey was supported by Google DeepMind, Jacobs’s employer, and says its views do not necessarily reflect those of DeepMind or Oxford.
The country results vary: at the 120%-of-salary offer, the reported share declining to quit was 16% in the UK, 17.9% in the US and Denmark, and 28.8% in India. The paper cautions that its Indian online sample was younger, more urban and more educated than the country’s population overall, limiting how broadly that figure should 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 the Survey Evidence
The paper is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed; its figures or conclusions could change in later versions. The central question is hypothetical: respondents were asked what they would do, rather than observed accepting or rejecting a real offer. Stated intentions may not predict decisions under actual financial, family or workplace conditions.
The survey covers four countries, but its online samples and quota approach do not make every result equally representative of each national population. The paper itself flags the composition of the India sample. It also does not establish that AI will replace the jobs respondents fear losing, how many jobs could be affected, or whether income support would compensate for lost purpose and social connection. The reported links between work values and political attitudes are associations, not causal findings.
Peer Review and Further Evidence
The next formal milestone is peer review or a revised preprint; no publication or review date is specified in the source material. Later versions may update the analysis, and independent studies could test whether the same patterns appear in more representative samples and in additional countries.
For now, the study offers evidence about what surveyed adults say they value and how they respond to a hypothetical income offer. It does not settle what policies governments should adopt or how workers would respond to actual AI-driven job losses. Those questions will require evidence from real labor-market changes and from people receiving different forms of support.
Key Questions
What did the survey find about quitting for guaranteed income?
The paper reports that about three-quarters would quit at guaranteed income equal to their current salary, while about one in five would still refuse at 120% of salary with benefits retained.
Who conducted the study and where was it published?
Julian Jacobs, affiliated with the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, authored the paper. It was posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026, as a preprint that has not been peer-reviewed.
Does the study show that basic income cannot replace work?
No. It measures survey responses to a hypothetical offer. The author argues that income may not replace all the non-financial value of work, but the study does not test the effects of a basic-income program.
How many people took part, and which countries were included?
The online survey included 8,234 working-age adults in Denmark, India, the UK and the US. It was fielded in June and July 2026 by More in Common.
What remains unknown about AI and these results?
The survey does not establish whether AI will replace the respondents’ jobs or predict how people would behave after an actual job loss. Its findings are self-reported and non-causal, and the preprint may change through review or revision.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
