🔍 Read the full analysis: AI At Work: A Survey Asks What We Might Lose Along The Way on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get hardware and tech essentials 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 four countries finds that many respondents value purpose, colleagues or recognition more than pay as a reason to work. About one in five said they would not quit even for guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary, but the survey measures stated preferences, not how people would behave in a real labor-market shock.
A new preprint by Julian Jacobs reports that about one in five of 8,234 surveyed adults in the UK, US, Denmark and India would not quit work even if offered guaranteed income equal to 120% of their current salary, with benefits retained. The paper, posted to arXiv on October 29, examines whether income alone could replace the purpose, social ties and recognition people associate with work as artificial intelligence changes jobs.
The study, “What is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI,” uses an online survey fielded in June and July 2026 by the polling organization More in Common. Respondents were offered a hypothetical guaranteed income, starting at 60% of their current salary and increasing in 10-point steps to 120%. The offer included healthcare, pension and paid leave. At each level, they were asked whether they would voluntarily quit.
Responses suggest that most participants would accept an offer below their current salary: a slight majority said they would leave at 80%, and about three in four said they would leave at 100%. At 120%, roughly 20% remained unwilling to quit. The paper reports that this share varied little by household income: 21% among lower-income respondents, 18% in the middle-income group and 22% among higher-income respondents. These are answers to a hypothetical question, not records of actual job departures.
The paper also groups respondents by their stated work values. Of those it could classify, 33% were primarily motivated by the work itself, such as purpose or learning; 23% by colleagues and belonging; 17% by status and recognition; and 26% by pay and benefits. In the paper’s figure, 73.7% put a nonfinancial reason first. The groups are not evenly distributed across every measure, and the results describe survey answers rather than a definitive account of why people work.
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 Income May Not Replace
The findings speak to a practical question facing employers and policymakers: if AI reduces demand for some kinds of labor, can income support make up for the loss of a job? Jacobs argues that a basic income may be necessary during an AI-related labor shock, while warning that money may not replace work’s other functions. The survey supports that as a question worth examining, but it does not establish what would happen if jobs disappeared at scale.
The difference between work-value groups was measurable but modest. After statistical controls, respondents primarily motivated by purpose said they would require roughly 1.9 to 5.8 percentage points more guaranteed income than pay-driven respondents before quitting, depending on the model used. At a $60,000 salary, the paper translates that range to about $1,100 to $3,500 a year. This is a modeled difference in stated thresholds, not evidence that employers would need to pay those amounts to retain workers.
The survey also found different levels of concern about AI-related job replacement: 40% of white-collar respondents considered it at least somewhat likely within ten years, compared with 29% of manual and service workers. That contrast may help frame workforce planning, but it is a measure of perceived risk, not a forecast of actual job losses.
Products Worth Considering
Apple MacBook Air 13-inch with M5 chip, 16GB memory, 1TB SSD, and 12MP Center Stage camera (Midnight)
Logitech MX Brio Ultra HD 4K Webcam, Graphite
Apple MacBook Pro 14.2 with M5 Pro Chip, 18-Core CPU / 20-Core GPU, 64GB RAM, 1TB SSD, Silver
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Survey Was Conducted
The paper is a 39-page, single-author preprint by Jacobs, affiliated with the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind. It was submitted to arXiv in the General Economics category on October 29, 2026, and had not been peer-reviewed in the source material. The author says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, his employer, and that the views in the paper do not necessarily reflect those of Oxford or DeepMind.
The 8,234 respondents comprised 2,032 people in Denmark, 2,072 in India, 2,052 in the UK and 2,078 in the US. The online survey used national quotas for age, gender, education and region. The paper describes questions about work values, the guaranteed-income scenario, how respondents would spend their time, and views of AI and politics. Its statistical models use cross-sectional data and controls including income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time work and country.
Reported quit intentions differed by country. At the 120%-of-salary offer, the paper gives a holdout share of 16.0% in the UK, 17.9% in both the US and Denmark, and 28.8% in India. 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 result can be generalized.
“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 Stated Preferences
The survey cannot establish whether respondents would actually leave their jobs under a real guaranteed-income program. The scenario simplifies decisions that could depend on family needs, local costs, job security, identity, working conditions and how a payment is funded or delivered. It also asks what people say they would do at one point in time, rather than tracking behavior as employment changes.
The findings are not peer-reviewed in the source material, and later versions could revise the analysis. Online sampling and country differences also affect how broadly the results can be applied, particularly in India. The paper’s political analysis is especially limited: it reports no significant differences between work-value groups in populist vote intention and says its analysis is relational rather than causal.
It is also unclear whether the survey’s four work-value profiles capture how individuals balance motives that can coexist. Someone may value pay, purpose and colleagues at once, and those priorities may shift with age, occupation or economic circumstances. The reported categories should not be read as fixed identities.
Peer Review and Follow-Up Evidence
The immediate next step is independent scrutiny of the preprint, including its survey design, classifications and statistical models. The source does not give a date for peer review or a planned publication, and it does not report a follow-up study. Later versions may alter the results, so readers should distinguish the current preprint from settled research findings.
For policymakers and employers, stronger evidence would require more than a hypothetical quit question: for example, tracking actual choices when people receive income support or experience workplace changes, and testing whether results hold across representative samples and different labor markets. The paper raises a question for that research rather than resolving how AI will affect employment or whether income payments can replace the social and personal roles of work.
Key Questions
What did the survey find about leaving work for guaranteed income?
About one in five respondents said they would not quit even if guaranteed income equaled 120% of their salary and benefits were retained. Most said they would leave at lower offers, but the question was hypothetical.
How many people took part, and where were they from?
The online 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. It was fielded in June and July 2026 by More in Common.
What reasons for working did the paper identify?
Among respondents the paper could classify, 33% were primarily motivated by the work itself, 23% by colleagues and belonging, 17% by status and recognition, and 26% by pay and benefits. These are survey categories, not exclusive motivations for every person.
Does the study show that AI will eliminate jobs?
No. It reports respondents’ perceptions of AI-related job risk, including that 40% of white-collar respondents considered replacement within ten years at least somewhat likely. It does not forecast job losses or measure future employment outcomes.
Has the paper been peer-reviewed?
Not according to the source material. It was posted to arXiv as a preprint on October 29, 2026, so its findings may change and should be treated as preliminary.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
