🔍 Read the full analysis: How Would AI Changing Our Jobs Change What Work Means? 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 new, non-peer-reviewed preprint based on a survey of 8,234 adults in four countries finds that many people would leave their jobs for guaranteed income, but about one in five would stay even at 120% of their salary. The study suggests that purpose, community and recognition can matter alongside pay, but it measures stated preferences—not how people would actually behave if AI displaced their jobs.
A new survey of 8,234 working-age adults finds that about one in five would not quit even if offered guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary, with benefits preserved. The finding comes from an October 29 arXiv preprint by Julian Jacobs of the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, which examines what people value in work as artificial intelligence raises concerns about future job losses.
The online survey covered adults in the United Kingdom, United States, Denmark and India, and was fielded in June and July by polling organization More in Common. Participants were asked at what level of guaranteed income—starting at 60% of their current salary and rising in 10-point steps—they would voluntarily quit, assuming health care, pension and paid leave continued. These are stated responses to a hypothetical offer, not observed decisions.
Across the four countries, a slight majority said they would leave by an offer worth 80% of their salary, and about three in four by an offer equal to their full salary. Yet roughly 20% still declined at 120%. That holdout share varied little by household income in the paper’s figures: 21% among lower-income respondents, 18% among middle-income respondents and 22% among higher-income respondents. The paper also reports that, among respondents who accepted an offer, the median point at which they would quit was 70% of salary.
The authors grouped respondents by their leading work values. Among those the paper could classify, 33% prioritized the work itself, including purpose, learning or contribution; 23% emphasized colleagues and belonging; 17% status and recognition; and 26% pay and benefits. The paper says 73.7% put a non-financial reason first. Its analysis estimates that purpose-driven respondents would require about 1.9 to 5.8 percentage points more guaranteed income than pay-driven respondents before quitting, depending on the statistical method used.
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 Pay Cannot Replace
The findings bear on debates about how societies might respond if AI reduces demand for some kinds of labor. Income support could address lost earnings, but the survey suggests that some workers also associate jobs with purpose, learning, social ties and recognition. A policy that replaces wages may not automatically replace those parts of people’s lives.
That distinction matters for employers and policymakers considering how to manage automation. If work provides community or a sense of contribution, then job displacement may affect people in ways that are not captured by income figures alone. The paper’s estimates of those effects are modest, however: the differences in quit thresholds amount to roughly $1,100 to $3,500 a year for someone earning $60,000. The result does not establish what support displaced workers would need, or whether alternative activities could provide similar benefits.
The paper also 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. Those figures describe respondents’ expectations, not forecasts of actual job losses. They show that perceived exposure is part of the current discussion, while leaving the scale and timing of employment changes unsettled.
Products Worth Considering
LG 34GX90SA-W 34-inch Ultragear WQHD OLED Curved Gaming Monitor
Samsung Galaxy Tab S10 FE 128GB Wi-Fi Android Tablet, Blue
LG UltraGear 27-Inch QHD OLED Gaming Monitor, 240Hz, 0.03ms, G-SYNC Compatible, FreeSync Premium Pro, HDMI 2.1
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Survey Tested Work Values
The study, titled “What is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI,” is a 39-page version-one preprint in the economics section of arXiv. It is not peer-reviewed, and its results may change in later versions. Jacobs used a nine-item set of questions about job priorities, an auction-style hypothetical income offer, questions about how respondents might spend their time, and measures of AI-related concern and political attitudes.
The sample included 2,032 respondents from Denmark, 2,072 from India, 2,052 from the UK and 2,078 from the US. The survey used national quotas for age, gender, education and region, but the paper cautions that the Indian online sample was younger, more urban and more educated than India’s population overall. The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, Jacobs’s employer, and that its views do not necessarily represent the positions of Oxford or DeepMind.
Jacobs’s interpretation is that a basic income “may indeed be necessary” in an AI-related labor shock, but could fail to compensate fully for what work provides beyond money. That is an argument drawn from respondents’ answers, not evidence that a basic income has already failed or that AI has caused the job losses discussed in the paper.
“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 Evidence
The survey captures what respondents say they would do under a hypothetical offer, not whether they would leave a real job with its daily routines, relationships and risks. It also cannot show how people’s preferences might change after displacement or how they would find purpose and social connection outside paid employment.
The preprint has not been peer-reviewed, and the author notes that the analysis is relational rather than causal. The paper’s tables do not show significant differences between the work-value groups in populist vote intention, despite discussion of possible political consequences. It is also unclear how representative the online samples are of each country’s entire working population, particularly in India. The survey does not establish how many jobs AI will replace, when that might happen, or whether its findings will hold in later research.
Peer Review and Further Research
The next step is scrutiny of the arXiv preprint and its methods, along with any revisions or follow-up studies. Since the paper is an initial version, later drafts could adjust its classifications, estimates or interpretation. Research that tracks people over time, or examines actual responses to job loss and income support, could test whether stated preferences match behavior.
For now, the paper offers a snapshot of how surveyed workers describe the value of their jobs and their expectations about AI. It does not predict a particular employment outcome or settle what policies would best address displacement. Those questions depend on future evidence about how AI changes work, which groups are affected, and what forms of support people find useful.
Key Questions
What did the survey find about leaving work for guaranteed income?
A slight majority of respondents said they would quit by an offer equal to 80% of their salary, while about three in four would quit at 100%. Roughly one in five would still decline an offer at 120%, with benefits preserved.
Does the study show that AI is replacing these workers’ jobs?
No. The survey measured people’s expectations about AI-related job replacement, not actual job losses caused by AI. It does not forecast how many jobs will be affected or when.
What did respondents value besides pay?
The paper grouped leading priorities as the work itself, including purpose and learning; colleagues and belonging; status and recognition; and pay and benefits. In the study’s classifications, 73.7% put a non-financial reason first.
Has the paper been peer-reviewed?
No. It is a version-one preprint on arXiv, posted October 29, 2026. Its findings have not been peer-reviewed and may change.
Can the results be applied to all workers?
Not with certainty. The survey covered four countries and used online samples with demographic quotas, but it does not represent every worker. The paper specifically notes that its Indian sample was younger, more urban and more educated than the country as a whole.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
