🔍 Read the full analysis: A New Survey Asks Workers What AI Could Take Along With Their Jobs on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get the little things that make your day delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
TL;DR
A preprint analyzing 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, while about one in five would stay even at 120% of pay. The paper argues that income may not replace the purpose, community and recognition people find in work, but its findings come from stated responses, not observed choices, and the study has not been peer-reviewed.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 respondents would not quit even if offered guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary, with health coverage, pension and paid leave retained. The result comes from a new, not-yet-peer-reviewed arXiv preprint by Julian Jacobs that examines what work provides beyond wages as artificial intelligence raises concerns about job displacement.
The paper, titled What is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI, was posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026. Jacobs, affiliated with the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, draws on an online survey fielded in June and July by polling organization More in Common. The survey included roughly 2,000 respondents from each country, with national quotas for age, gender, education and region.
In the survey’s hypothetical offer, respondents were asked whether they would voluntarily leave their job for a guaranteed income starting at 60% of their current salary. The offered amount rose in ten-percentage-point steps to 120%, while healthcare, pension and paid leave remained in place. Across the four countries, a slight majority said they would leave at 80% of salary, around three in four would do so at 100%, and about 20% still declined at 120%. Among those who accepted an offer, the median point at which they said they would quit was 70% of salary.
The preprint groups workers by their stated priorities at work. Among respondents the paper 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 paper’s figure reports that 73.7% placed a non-financial reason first. The share primarily motivated by the work itself was similar across household income groups—32% among low-income, 33% among middle-income and 34% among high-income respondents.
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
Income May Not Replace Work
The survey addresses a practical question facing workers, employers and policymakers: if AI reduces demand for some kinds of labor, can income support compensate people for the loss of a job? The responses suggest that pay is not the only reason people work, and that a guaranteed payment may not persuade every worker to leave, even when it exceeds their salary.
That does not establish how people would behave after an actual job loss or income offer. The paper’s evidence comes from answers to a hypothetical question. Still, its findings point to potential limits in treating cash compensation as a complete substitute for purpose, social connection and recognition. Those distinctions may matter in debates about income support and how employers redesign jobs as AI tools spread.
The estimated differences between work-value groups were comparatively modest. After statistical controls, people chiefly motivated by purpose asked for about 1.9 to 5.8 percentage points more guaranteed income before saying they would quit than people chiefly motivated by pay. The author’s illustration translates that range to roughly $1,100 to $3,500 per year for someone earning $60,000. That is an estimate from the models, not evidence of a real-world payment threshold.
Products Worth Considering
Bose TV Speaker (2nd Gen) Compact Soundbar with Bluetooth and HDMI
Bose TV Speaker Compact Soundbar with Bluetooth and HDMI-ARC, Black
Shark PowerDetect Corded Stick Vacuum, Self-Cleaning (Eggplant, HZ4002)
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Survey Frames Work
The study combines questions about job priorities with a sequence of income offers. Respondents rated the importance of factors such as pay, benefits, purpose, learning, contribution, belonging, social contact and status. The paper then sorted eligible answers into four “Work Values Profiles” and compared them with responses to the quit-offer scenario.
It also asked about expected AI effects on jobs and about political views. The preprint reports that 40% of white-collar respondents thought AI was at least somewhat likely to replace their job within ten years, compared with 29% of manual and service workers. These are respondents’ expectations, not forecasts of actual job losses.
The analysis uses cross-sectional regressions that account for factors including income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time work and country. The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, Jacobs’s employer, and states that its views do not necessarily reflect those of Oxford or DeepMind. The document is a 39-page first-version preprint, so its results have not yet undergone peer review and may change.
“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 Hypothetical Offers
The survey records what respondents said they might do, not what they did when offered a real job exit and guaranteed income. It is not clear whether the same patterns would hold if people faced actual unemployment, changing household needs or uncertainty about whether payments would continue.
The paper is a first-version preprint that has not been peer-reviewed, and the author says the analysis is relational rather than causal. Its political findings are also limited: although workers motivated by purpose and community became more pessimistic when they expected AI to harm jobs in their industry, the paper’s tables do not show significant differences between the groups in populist vote intention.
Country-level results require care as well. The share declining the 120% offer 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 highly educated than India’s population overall. The results therefore should not be read as nationally representative of every worker in India without qualification.
Peer Review and Later Versions
The immediate next step is for the preprint to receive scrutiny from researchers and readers. Because the paper is not peer-reviewed, its methods, classification of work values and interpretation of the survey results may be revised in later versions. The source material does not identify a planned publication date or a scheduled follow-up study.
Further evidence would be needed to test whether stated preferences predict decisions in real labor-market settings, and whether income support can offset the non-financial effects of losing work. For now, the findings offer a snapshot of surveyed attitudes in four countries, not a direct measure of how workers will respond as AI changes particular jobs.
Key Questions
What did the survey find about leaving a job?
A slight majority of respondents said they would leave for guaranteed income equal to 80% of their current salary. Around three in four said they would leave at 100%, while about one in five still declined an offer at 120%.
Who conducted the study?
The results appear in an arXiv preprint by Julian Jacobs, affiliated with the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind. More in Common fielded the online survey in June and July 2026.
Does the study prove that income cannot replace work?
No. It records responses to a hypothetical income offer, not actual choices after job loss. The author interprets the results as suggesting that money may not replace all the non-financial benefits of work.
Has the paper been peer-reviewed?
No. The paper was posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026, as a first-version preprint. Its results could change as it is reviewed or revised.
What does the survey say about AI replacing jobs?
In the survey, 40% of white-collar workers considered AI at least somewhat likely to replace their job within ten years, compared with 29% of manual and service workers. These figures describe expectations among respondents, not confirmed job-loss forecasts.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
