🔍 Read the full analysis: Work, Purpose, And AI: What 8,234 Workers Say Matters on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get smart everyday buys 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 2026 survey of 8,234 working-age adults found that most would quit if offered guaranteed income, but about one in five would stay even at 120% of their salary. The study also found that nonfinancial factors often rank above pay, though its results are based on stated preferences and do not establish how people would act in practice.
A new 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 healthcare, pension and paid leave retained. The finding, reported in an October 29 preprint by Oxford and Google DeepMind researcher Julian Jacobs, points to the limits of treating income alone as a substitute for the purpose, relationships and recognition some people get from work.
The paper, titled What is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI, is based on an online survey fielded in June and July 2026 by the polling organization More in Common. Respondents came from Denmark, India, the UK and the US, with national quotas for age, gender, education and region. Jacobs grouped workers according to the job factors they said mattered most. Among respondents the paper could classify, 33% were primarily motivated by the work itself, including purpose, learning or contribution; 23% prioritized colleagues and belonging; 17% status and recognition; and 26% pay and benefits.
The survey also asked whether respondents would voluntarily quit for a guaranteed income, starting at 60% of current salary and rising in steps of ten percentage points to 120%. By an offer of 80% of salary, a slight majority said they would leave; at full salary, about three in four said they would. Among those who accepted an offer, the median point at which they would quit was 70% of salary. These are answers to a hypothetical question, not records of actual job departures.
The share who would remain at 120% was broadly similar across income groups: 21% among lower-income respondents, 18% in the middle group and 22% among higher-income respondents. The paper reports that roughly a third of respondents in each income group were mainly driven by the work itself. Jacobs also found 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
Why Income May Not Replace Work
The findings bear on debates about how governments and employers might respond if AI reduces demand for some kinds of labor. Jacobs argues that a basic income may be necessary in an AI-related labor shock, while warning that cash alone could fail to replace what work provides beyond earnings. That is an interpretation of survey responses, not evidence that a particular income policy would fail.
The study’s estimates of the difference between work motivations are modest. After statistical controls, purpose-driven respondents required about 1.9 to 5.8 percentage points more guaranteed income than pay-driven respondents before saying they would quit, depending on the model. At a $60,000 salary, the paper translates that difference to roughly $1,100 to $3,500 a year. The results suggest that work’s social and personal roles may matter to policy discussions, but they do not show how those roles could be replaced or how large the effects would be in a real labor-market disruption.
Products Worth Considering
Brother QL-800 High-Speed Professional Thermal Label Printer
Dell XPS 13 9350 AI Professional Laptop 13.4 120Hz FHD+ Display
Logitech MX Mechanical Wireless Illuminated Performance Keyboard – Clicky
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Survey Tested Work’s Value
The paper uses a nine-item questionnaire about job values, an income-for-quitting scenario, questions about how respondents might spend their time away from work, and measures of perceived AI risk and political attitudes. Its estimates use cross-sectional regressions with controls including income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time work and country. The design lets the author compare reported preferences across groups, but it cannot establish that a particular motivation causes a person to behave in a specific way.
The country results also vary. At the 120% offer, the reported share who would still refuse to quit was 16% in the UK, about 18% in the US and Denmark, and 28.8% in India. The source cautions that the Indian online sample was younger, more urban and more educated than India’s population overall, so that figure should not be treated as nationally representative without qualification.
The preprint was submitted to arXiv in general economics on October 29, 2026. It is a 39-page, single-author paper and has not been peer-reviewed. 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.
“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 Preprint Evidence
The results remain self-reported responses to hypothetical scenarios. The survey does not show whether people would actually leave their jobs at the offered income levels, how long they might remain out of work, or whether a guaranteed income would meet their financial needs over time. Because the study is cross-sectional, associations between work values, AI fears and political views cannot establish cause and effect.
The paper is an unreviewed preprint, and the source says later versions could change its figures. Some political claims also appear less supported than the findings about work values: the paper’s tables reportedly show no significant differences among work-value groups in populist vote intention. The available material does not specify the full distribution of answers for every survey question or establish how the findings would hold outside the four sampled countries.
Peer Review and Further Evidence
The next clear milestone is whether Jacobs posts a revised version or the paper receives peer review. Later work could test whether the same patterns appear in other countries and whether stated willingness to quit predicts actual decisions when income, benefits and workplace relationships are at stake.
For now, the findings offer evidence about what respondents say they value, not a forecast of how AI will change employment or proof that a specific policy will offset those changes. Employers and policymakers considering AI-related job disruption would need additional evidence on real employment outcomes, income support and the social effects of losing work.
Key Questions
What did the survey find about quitting for guaranteed income?
Most respondents said they would quit at an offer below or equal to their current salary. About one in five said they would still refuse at 120% of salary, with healthcare, pension and paid leave retained.
Who conducted the study, and when?
The study was written by Julian Jacobs of the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind. More in Common fielded the survey in June and July 2026 among 8,234 working-age adults in Denmark, India, the UK and the US.
Does the study prove that basic income cannot replace work?
No. Jacobs argues that income may not replace work’s nonfinancial benefits, but the evidence comes from stated answers to survey questions. The study did not test a basic-income program or observe people after they left employment.
Has the paper been peer-reviewed?
No. The 39-page paper was posted as an arXiv preprint on October 29, 2026, and has not been peer-reviewed. Its results could change in a later version.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
