🔍 Read the full analysis: Will AI Change What Work Is For? 8,234 Workers Weigh In on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on office and shipping supplies
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
A preprint based on a survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, US, Denmark and India finds that most respondents would leave their jobs for guaranteed income below their current salary. About one in five said they would stay even if offered 120% of their salary, with purpose, community and other non-pay values linked to a higher threshold for quitting. The survey records stated preferences, not observed behavior, and the paper has not been peer-reviewed.
A survey of 8,234 working-age adults across the UK, US, Denmark and India found that about one in five would not quit even if guaranteed income reached 120% of their salary, according to a preprint posted October 29. The paper, by University of Oxford and Google DeepMind researcher Julian Jacobs, examines what people value in work as artificial intelligence raises questions about jobs and income; its findings are based on stated answers, not observed choices.
Respondents were asked at what guaranteed income level they would voluntarily leave their jobs, with health coverage, pension and paid leave retained. Offers rose in steps from 60% to 120% of each person’s current salary. A slight majority would leave by the 80% offer, around three-quarters by 100%, and roughly 20% would still refuse at 120%, the paper reports. Among people who accepted an offer, the median quit point was 70% of salary.
The paper groups respondents by their leading work values. Among those the analysis could classify, 33% were primarily motivated by the work itself, including purpose, learning or contribution; 23% by colleagues and belonging; 17% by status and recognition; and 26% by pay and benefits. The article’s source says the paper’s figure found 73.7% put a non-money reason first. These are categories built from survey answers, not measurements of how people behave at work.
Jacobs reports that purpose-oriented respondents required about 1.9 to 5.8 percentage points more guaranteed income before saying they would quit than respondents primarily motivated by pay, depending on the statistical method. The source translates that range to about $1,100 to $3,500 a year for someone earning $60,000. The paper also reports that 40% of white-collar respondents considered it at least somewhat likely AI would replace their job within ten years, compared with 29% of manual and service workers.
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 May Not Replace
The results speak to a practical question for employers and policymakers: would replacing wages with guaranteed income replace the value people get from work? The survey suggests that many respondents would leave employment if their income were assured, while a substantial minority say money alone would not persuade them. The distinction matters in debates over how societies might respond if AI reduces demand for some kinds of labor.
Jacobs argues that a basic income may be necessary during an AI-related labor shock but might not compensate people for the purpose, social ties, learning or recognition they associate with jobs. That is an interpretation of the responses, not a tested policy result. The survey does not establish whether people who say they would stay would actually do so, or what supports could replace the nonfinancial parts of work.
The differences by work-value group are also modest in the paper’s models: purpose-driven respondents ask for a somewhat higher income threshold to quit, but the reported gap is measured in percentage points. The finding points to possible variation in how workers respond to job disruption; it does not show that one group will be protected from, or more affected by, AI.
Popular right now
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Noise Cancelling Headphones, Sandstone
Bose QuietComfort Ultra Wireless Noise-Cancelling Headphones with Spatial Audio, Black
Ninja DualZone 6-in-1 Air Fryer, 8-Qt, Grey, DZ801
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Survey Was Designed
The 39-page paper, “What is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI,” was posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026. It is a version-one preprint in general economics and has not been peer-reviewed. The survey was fielded in June and July by More in Common, with 2,032 respondents in Denmark, 2,072 in India, 2,052 in the UK and 2,078 in the US. National quotas covered age, gender, education and region.
Participants answered questions about job values, a hypothetical guaranteed-income offer, how they would spend their time outside work, and their views of AI-related job threats and politics. The author used cross-sectional statistical models with controls including income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time work and country. Such models can identify associations in the surveyed data but cannot establish cause and effect.
The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, Jacobs’s employer, and says its views do not necessarily reflect those of Oxford or DeepMind. The source material reports that the paper appeared on Hacker News on October 31; that is a distribution detail, not evidence that the research has been independently validated.
“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 Survey Evidence
The central figures reflect answers to a hypothetical offer; the survey did not track whether respondents later quit jobs or accepted guaranteed income. How people would behave when faced with real financial, family and career consequences remains unknown.
The paper is a single-author preprint that has not been peer-reviewed, and its findings could change in later versions. The online sample in India, according to the source material, was younger, more urban and more educated than the country’s population overall, limiting how broadly that country’s results can be applied.
The relationship between work values and political views is also unsettled. The source reports that purpose- and community-oriented respondents were more pessimistic when they expected AI to harm jobs in their industry, but says the groups did not differ significantly in populist vote intention. The data do not establish that AI concerns caused those attitudes, or that survey responses predict future voting or employment behavior.
Peer Review and Further Evidence
The immediate next milestone is any revision or formal review of the arXiv preprint. The source material does not identify a scheduled peer-review date, publication decision or follow-up survey. Until further research is available, the reported results should be read as an early account of stated preferences from respondents in four countries.
More evidence would be needed to see whether the patterns hold in representative samples and over time, and whether stated willingness to leave work predicts actual decisions. Research that follows workers through job changes or tests real policy arrangements could help distinguish what people say they value from what they do when employment and income are at stake.
Key Questions
What did the survey find about quitting for guaranteed income?
The paper reports that a slight majority would leave by an offer equal to 80% of their current salary, around three-quarters by 100%, and about 20% would still stay at 120%. Health coverage, pension and paid leave were retained in the hypothetical offer.
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 US. It was fielded in June and July 2026 by More in Common.
Does the paper show that AI will replace these workers’ jobs?
No. It reports respondents’ expectations about AI and their views of work. The survey does not establish which jobs AI will replace or when. The source says 40% of white-collar respondents considered replacement within ten years at least somewhat likely, compared with 29% of manual and service workers.
Has the research been peer-reviewed?
No. The paper was posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026, as a version-one preprint. It has not been peer-reviewed, and later versions could change its analysis or findings.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
