🔍 Read the full analysis: Surveying 8,234 Workers On AI, Jobs, And What Work Is For 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 June–July 2026 survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, US, Denmark and India found that about one in five would not quit even if offered guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary, with benefits retained. The arXiv preprint argues that work supplies purpose, community and status as well as income, but its findings come from stated answers and do not establish how people would act in practice.
A survey of 8,234 working-age adults found that about one in five would not leave their job even for guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary, with health cover, pension and paid leave preserved. The finding appears in a 29 October arXiv preprint by Julian Jacobs of the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, which examines what workers say they value beyond pay as artificial intelligence raises concerns about the future of jobs.
The survey covered adults in the UK, United States, Denmark and India, with roughly 2,000 respondents in each country. More in Common conducted the online survey in June and July 2026, using national quotas for age, gender, education and region. The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, Jacobs’s employer.
Respondents considered an offer of guaranteed income, starting at 60% of current salary and rising in 10-point steps to 120%, while keeping specified benefits. At 80% of salary, a slight majority said they would leave; at 100%, about three-quarters said they 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 paper also groups respondents by the reasons they say matter in a job. Among those it 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% prioritized a non-financial reason. Those figures describe stated priorities, not observed choices or behavior.
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 Workers Value Beyond Pay
The findings speak to a question facing employers and policymakers: if AI reduces demand for some kinds of labor, would income support replace what people get from work? Jacobs argues that it may not. A job can provide social connection, recognition and a sense of contribution alongside wages, meaning that a payment alone may not reproduce its full role in people’s lives.
The paper says the share primarily motivated by the work itself is similar across household-income groups: 32% among lower-income, 33% among middle-income and 34% among higher-income respondents. That pattern suggests, within this survey, that work-related purpose is not confined to higher earners. It does not show that every person in those groups would reject income support, or that the survey’s hypothetical choices predict decisions during actual job loss.
The reported differences in the amount people require to quit are modest. After statistical controls, respondents classified as purpose-driven asked for about 1.9 to 5.8 percentage points more guaranteed income than pay-driven respondents, depending on the model. At a $60,000 salary, the source estimates that as roughly $1,100 to $3,500 a year. These are model-based associations, not a measured cost of replacing work’s social or personal benefits.
Popular right now
Bose QuietComfort Headphones (2nd Gen), Wireless Noise-Cancelling Over-Ear Headphones, Black
KitchenAid Artisan Series 5-Quart Tilt-Head Stand Mixer, Dried Rose (KSM150PS)
Ninja Foodi 10-Qt DualZone Smart XL Air Fryer, 6-in-1, DZ550
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Survey Tested Work
The paper, titled What is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI, is a 39-page preprint with 17 figures. It was posted to arXiv on 29 October 2026 and had not been peer-reviewed as of the source report. Its conclusions may change in later versions. The survey used questions about job values, a guaranteed-income scenario, how respondents might spend their time, perceived AI risk and political attitudes.
For the work-values profiles, participants rated the importance of factors including pay, benefits, purpose, learning, social contribution, belonging, meeting people and status. The income question then asked whether they would voluntarily quit at successively higher guaranteed amounts. The author used cross-sectional regression models with controls that included income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time work and country. The design captures responses at one point in time; it does not follow workers through an actual AI-driven employment change.
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 reflect respondents’ perceptions, rather than a forecast of job losses verified by employment data.
“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, the paper’s author
Limits of the Survey Evidence
The survey measures what people said they would do in a hypothetical offer, not whether they would actually leave work when presented with guaranteed income. It is also cross-sectional and not peer-reviewed, and the author describes the analysis as relational rather than causal. The source does not establish how responses might change during a real labor-market disruption or over time.
Some country-level comparisons need care. The reported 120%-offer holdout share was 28.8% in India, compared with 16.0% in the UK and 17.9% in both the US and Denmark. The source notes that the Indian online sample was younger, more urban and more educated than the country as a whole, limiting how readily that figure represents India’s population.
The political findings are less conclusive than the paper’s broader discussion of work and AI might suggest. The source says groups with different work-value profiles did not differ significantly in populist vote intention. It reports that purpose- and community-driven respondents became more pessimistic when they expected AI to harm jobs in their industry, but that association does not show why they felt that way or predict how they will vote.
Peer Review and Further Evidence
The next clear milestone is whether the preprint receives peer review or is revised. The current version is identified as version 1; the source gives no publication schedule or confirmed next release. Later versions could clarify the survey methods, analysis and interpretation, but no revisions are yet established.
For now, the results offer a snapshot of workers’ stated preferences across four countries, not a forecast of how AI will change employment or proof that a particular income policy will work. Readers and policymakers will need evidence from other surveys and from real-world employment changes to determine whether the reported willingness to leave, or the minority who would stay, carries over to actual decisions.
Key Questions
What did the survey find about leaving work for guaranteed income?
About three-quarters of respondents said they would leave for guaranteed income equal to their salary, with specified benefits retained. About one in five would still not leave at 120% of salary.
Who took part in the survey?
The online survey included 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, US, Denmark and India. More in Common conducted it in June and July 2026.
Has the paper been peer-reviewed?
No. The source describes it as a version-one arXiv preprint posted on 29 October 2026. It had not been peer-reviewed at the time of the report.
Does the study show that AI will replace these workers’ jobs?
No. It records workers’ perceptions of AI-related job risk; for example, 40% of white-collar respondents said replacement within ten years was at least somewhat likely. Those answers are not verified job-loss forecasts.
Does the paper prove that income support cannot replace work?
No. That is the author’s interpretation of survey responses. The study uses a hypothetical offer and cross-sectional analysis, so it does not establish how people would act in practice or prove the effects of a basic-income policy.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
