🔍 Read the full analysis: Could AI Take Away The Parts Of Work We Value Most? 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 based on a 2026 survey of 8,234 working-age adults finds that most respondents would leave their jobs for guaranteed income, but about one in five would stay even if offered 120% of their salary with benefits preserved. The findings suggest that income may not replace the purpose, community or recognition some people get from work, though the study measures stated preferences and cannot show how people would behave in practice.
A new arXiv preprint based on a survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, US, Denmark and India finds that about one in five respondents would not leave their job even for guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary, with health coverage, pension and paid leave intact. The result suggests that money may not replace every part of work people value, but it reflects answers to a hypothetical question, not observed decisions.
The paper, What is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI, was posted on October 29, 2026. Its single author, Julian Jacobs, is affiliated with the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind. The survey was conducted by polling organization More in Common in June and July, with roughly 2,000 respondents in each of the four countries. The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind and that its conclusions do not necessarily reflect the views of Oxford or DeepMind.
Respondents were asked, in steps from 60% to 120% of their current salary, whether they would voluntarily quit if they received guaranteed income while keeping specified benefits. The paper reports that a slight majority would leave at 80% of salary and about three in four would leave at 100%. At 120%, about 20% said they would stay. Among those who accepted an offer, the median point at which they would quit was 70% of salary.
The study also groups respondents by the reasons they say matter in their jobs. Among those the authors could classify, 33% were mainly 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. The paper says 73.7% put a non-financial reason first. These categories describe survey responses, not fixed or mutually exclusive identities beyond the study’s classification.
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
The findings speak to a growing policy and workplace question: if AI changes demand for human labor, can income support make up for what people lose when work disappears? The author argues that a basic income may be needed in an AI-related labor shock, while warning that it could fail to replace work’s sources of purpose, belonging and recognition. That is an interpretation of the survey, not a measured outcome of an actual job loss or income program.
The paper reports that workers motivated mainly by purpose required about 1.9 to 5.8 percentage points more guaranteed income to say they would quit than those mainly motivated by pay, depending on the model. At a $60,000 salary, the paper translates that range to roughly $1,100 to $3,500 a year. The estimated differences are modest, and stated willingness to quit does not establish how workers would act when facing real financial and personal consequences.
The issue also matters to employers considering AI adoption. If workers value relationships, contribution or opportunities to learn, replacing tasks without attending to those features could affect how people experience their jobs. The survey does not test workplace interventions, however, and it cannot establish that preserving those features would prevent job losses or improve outcomes.
Products Worth Considering
LG 24G414B-B 24-Inch UltraGear Full HD IPS Gaming Monitor
LG UltraGear 32GX850A-B 32-Inch 4K UHD Glossy OLED Gaming Monitor
LG UltraGear 32GX870A-B 32-inch 4K OLED Gaming Monitor
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Survey Tested Work Preferences
The paper uses a hypothetical “auction” to compare work with guaranteed income. Respondents were offered a payment set as a percentage of their current salary, rising in 10-point steps, with health coverage, pension and paid leave retained. They were asked at each level whether they would leave voluntarily. This design gives the authors a common way to compare stated preferences across respondents, but it is not a trial of basic income or a record of people actually resigning.
Responses came from 2,032 people in Denmark, 2,072 in India, 2,052 in the UK and 2,078 in the US. The survey used national quotas for age, gender, education and region. The paper reports that about 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. Those figures capture respondents’ views about risk; they are not forecasts of actual job displacement.
The work is a 39-page, version-one preprint in arXiv’s General Economics category and has not been peer-reviewed. The author says the analysis uses cross-sectional regressions with controls for factors including income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time status and country. The paper also describes its analysis of work values and political attitudes as relational rather than causal.
“A basic income “may indeed be necessary” in an AI labor shock, but “could ultimately fail to compensate workers” for what work provides beyond money.”
— Julian Jacobs, paper author
What Stated Preferences Cannot Show
The central limitation is that respondents answered a hypothetical question. The results do not show whether people would leave a real job, how they would respond to a particular AI-driven layoff, or whether guaranteed income could replace the social and personal benefits they described. Answers may also differ when household expenses, job prospects, caregiving duties and the security of an actual payment are at stake.
The preprint has not been peer-reviewed, and the authors’ classifications and estimates may change in later versions. Its cross-sectional design cannot show that a person’s work values cause a particular response to AI or a political attitude. The paper reports no significant differences between the work-value groups in populist vote intention, despite finding that purpose- and community-driven respondents were more pessimistic when they expected AI to harm jobs in their industry.
Some country comparisons also need care. The paper reports that the holdout share was 28.8% in India, compared with 16.0% in the UK and 17.9% in both the US and Denmark, while noting that the Indian online sample was younger, more urban and more educated than the country overall. The survey cannot by itself establish that these figures represent all workers in those countries.
Peer Review and Real-World Evidence
The next step is scrutiny of the preprint’s methods and results, along with any revisions the author makes. Because it is a first-version paper, the reported estimates should be treated as provisional until reviewed and tested against further evidence.
More evidence would be needed to understand how people respond when AI changes their jobs in practice, rather than in a survey scenario. That includes tracking actual employment decisions and evaluating income-support policies and workplace changes over time. For now, the paper offers a snapshot of what respondents say they value and what they say they might do—not a forecast of how AI will reshape work or proof that income alone will, or will not, compensate for those changes.
Key Questions
What did the survey find about guaranteed income?
About three in four respondents said they would leave at 100% of their salary, and about one in five would still stay at 120%, with specified benefits preserved. These are answers to a hypothetical survey question.
Who conducted the study?
The paper was written by Julian Jacobs, affiliated with the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind. More in Common fielded the survey in the UK, US, Denmark and India in June and July 2026. The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind.
Does the paper prove that basic income cannot replace work?
No. The author argues that income support may not replace every benefit people get from work, but the study measured stated preferences rather than outcomes under a real basic-income program. It cannot establish what people would do after actual job loss.
Is the research peer-reviewed?
No. The paper was posted as a version-one arXiv preprint on October 29, 2026, and has not been peer-reviewed. Its findings could change in later versions.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
