🔍 Read the full analysis: How A Survey Of 8,234 Workers Reframes The AI Jobs Question on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get the latest gadgets 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 work for guaranteed income below their current salary, but about one in five would stay even at 120% of pay. The findings suggest jobs can provide value beyond income, but they are based on hypothetical answers and do not show how workers would behave during actual job losses.
A survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, US, Denmark and India found that roughly 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 preserved. The result is among the findings in a preprint posted October 29 by Julian Jacobs of the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, which examines what work provides beyond wages as artificial intelligence raises questions about future employment.
In the survey’s hypothetical offer, respondents were asked whether they would voluntarily leave their jobs in exchange for guaranteed income set at successive levels from 60% to 120% of current salary. The paper reports that a slight majority would leave at 80% of their pay, about three in four would do so at 100%, and roughly 20% would still refuse at 120%. Among respondents who accepted an offer, the median point at which they would quit was 70% of salary.
The author grouped workers’ stated priorities into four profiles: work itself, including purpose, learning and contribution; community and belonging; status and recognition; and pay and benefits. Among respondents the paper could classify, 33% were primarily driven by the work itself, 23% by colleagues and belonging, 17% by status, and 26% by pay and benefits. The paper’s figure says 73.7% put a non-financial reason first. The reported share primarily driven by the work itself varied little by household income, at 32% among low-income respondents, 33% among middle-income respondents and 34% among high-income respondents.
The survey was fielded in June and July 2026 by polling organization More in Common, with national quotas for age, gender, education and region. The country samples ranged from 2,032 people in Denmark to 2,078 in the US. The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, Jacobs’s employer, and notes that its views do not necessarily reflect the positions of Oxford or DeepMind.
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’s Other Value
The findings speak to a practical question raised by automation: if AI reduces demand for some jobs, would income support compensate people for losing work? Jacobs argues that a basic income may be necessary in an AI-driven labor shock, but could fail to replace work’s sources of purpose, community or recognition. That is an interpretation of survey responses, not a measured outcome from people who have lost jobs or received income support.
The distinction matters for employers and policymakers. If work provides social connection or a sense of contribution alongside wages, responses to job disruption may depend on more than the size of a cash payment. The paper also finds that 40% of white-collar respondents considered AI at least somewhat likely to replace their job within ten years, compared with 29% of manual and service workers. Those figures describe respondents’ expectations, not forecasts that those jobs will disappear.
The results do not mean that most people prefer to keep working regardless of pay. The same survey indicates that most respondents would leave for guaranteed income below their current salary. Its central tension is that work is replaceable for many under the stated conditions, while a notable minority say money alone would not persuade them to stop.
Products Worth Considering
Jackery Explorer 300 Portable Power Station, 292Wh
Apple iPad Air (2025) 13‑inch Wi‑Fi 256 GB – Space Gray (M3 chip)
Sonos Era 100 SL Compact, Microphone-Free Speaker – Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
A Hypothetical Test of Work
The paper, titled What is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI, is a 39-page arXiv preprint submitted in the General Economics category on October 29, 2026. It is a single-author paper by Julian Jacobs, affiliated with the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, and has not been peer-reviewed. The author’s analysis uses an original online survey and cross-sectional statistical models, with controls including income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time work and country.
The guaranteed-income question is a stated-preference exercise: respondents considered a series of offers while keeping specified benefits. It does not track actual resignation decisions, nor does it establish how people would respond to a real universal basic income or a period of unemployment. The survey also asked about work values, how respondents would spend their time, perceived AI threats and political attitudes.
Some comparisons require caution. The paper reports that 28.8% of Indian respondents were holdouts at the 120% offer, higher than the shares in the other three countries, but says the Indian online sample was younger, more urban and more educated than the country overall. The findings should not be treated as nationally representative in the same way across all countries without accounting for those sample characteristics.
“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 study measures answers to a hypothetical offer, not actual decisions, so it cannot show whether respondents would leave their jobs under real-world conditions. It also cannot establish that AI will eliminate the jobs respondents fear losing, or that non-financial work values cause a particular response to automation.
The preprint has not been peer-reviewed, and its findings may change in later versions. The author reports that Google DeepMind supported the survey; readers have that disclosure, but the source material does not establish that the funding affected the results. The paper also reports no significant difference between the work-value groups in populist vote intention, despite finding that purpose- and community-driven respondents became more pessimistic when they expected AI to hurt jobs in their industry.
It remains unclear how well the survey’s online samples represent each country’s workforce, particularly in India, and whether the stated preferences would persist over time. The results do not estimate how many jobs AI will replace or the likely effects of a specific income-support policy.
Peer Review and Further Evidence
The immediate next step is further scrutiny of the arXiv preprint: it may be revised, and the findings could be tested through peer review or independent research. The source material does not identify a planned publication date or a follow-up survey.
For policymakers and employers, stronger evidence would require tracking what people do when their work changes or disappears, rather than relying only on stated intentions. Comparisons across countries and income groups would also benefit from closer attention to sample representativeness. Until then, this survey offers evidence about what respondents say they value, but not a settled answer to how income support could replace the social and personal roles of work.
Key Questions
What did the survey find about leaving work for guaranteed income?
The paper reports that a slight majority would leave at 80% of current salary, about three in four at 100%, and around one in five would still refuse at 120%, with health coverage, pension and paid leave retained.
Who took part in the survey?
The 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. More in Common fielded it in June and July 2026.
Does the study prove that basic income cannot replace work?
No. The author argues that income support could fail to replace work’s non-financial value, but the study measures hypothetical preferences. It does not test an actual basic-income program or observe workers after job loss.
Has the paper been peer-reviewed?
No. It was posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026, as a preprint and had not been peer-reviewed at the time described in the source material.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
