🔍 Read the full analysis: Does Work Shape More Than Our Careers? 8,234 Workers Consider AI on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get audio and creator gear 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 survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, US, Denmark and India finds that many respondents value purpose, community or status at work alongside pay. Most said they would leave for a guaranteed income below their salary, but about one in five would stay even at 120% of current pay. The results are self-reported and do not show how people would actually respond to AI job losses.
A survey of 8,234 working-age adults in four countries found that about one in five respondents would not leave their job even if offered guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary, with health cover, pension and paid leave preserved. The finding comes from a non-peer-reviewed preprint by Julian Jacobs of the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, which examines what people say work provides beyond pay 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. More in Common fielded the online survey in June and July across the UK, US, Denmark and India. The study asked about job values, views of AI’s potential effects, and a hypothetical offer to quit in return for guaranteed income and continued benefits.
In that offer exercise, respondents were asked whether they would leave at income levels rising from 60% to 120% of current salary, in 10-point steps. The paper reports that a slight majority would leave at 80% of their salary; about three-quarters would leave at 100%. At 120%, approximately 20% still said they would stay. Among those who accepted an offer, the median threshold was 70% of salary and the average was 76%.
The study groups workers by the values they rated highly. Among respondents the researchers could classify, 33% were mainly driven by the work itself, such as purpose, learning or contribution; 23% by colleagues and belonging; 17% by status and recognition; and 26% by pay and benefits. The paper’s figure says 73.7% put a non-monetary reason first. Those figures describe survey classifications, not a direct measure of how people behave at 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 Workers May Lose Beyond Pay
The findings matter to debates over how governments and employers might respond if AI reduces demand for some kinds of labor. Income support could address lost earnings, but the responses suggest that some people also associate jobs with purpose, learning, social ties and recognition. The paper’s author argues that a basic income may be needed in an AI-related labor shock, while warning that money alone could fail to replace those other benefits.
That conclusion is an interpretation of answers to a hypothetical question, not evidence that income support would fail in practice. The survey does not test what happens when someone actually loses a job, nor whether other institutions or activities could provide similar sources of meaning and connection. Still, the results suggest that planning for job disruption may involve more than replacing wages: how people retain connection and a sense of contribution is also part of the question.
The paper also reports a difference in perceived exposure to AI: 40% of white-collar workers said AI was at least somewhat likely to replace their job within ten years, compared with 29% of manual and service workers. This is a measure of respondents’ expectations, not a forecast of actual job losses.
Products Worth Considering
Logitech MX Mechanical Wireless Illuminated Performance Keyboard – Clicky
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Noise Cancelling Headphones, Sandstone
Apple Watch Series 12 GPS Smartwatch, 46mm
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Survey Tested Work Values
The paper uses a nine-item battery asking how important different aspects of a job are, including pay, benefits, purpose, learning, social contribution, belonging, meeting people and status. It then assigns respondents to four “Work Values Profiles.” The guaranteed-income exercise was designed as an auction-like sequence: respondents considered progressively higher offers while keeping healthcare, pension and paid leave.
The sample included 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, but the paper notes a limitation in the Indian sample: it was younger, more urban and more educated than India’s population overall. The reported holdout rate at 120% varied from 16% in the UK to 28.8% in India.
The author’s analysis uses cross-sectional regression models with controls that include income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time work and country. The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, where Jacobs works, and says its views do not necessarily represent the positions of Google DeepMind or the University of Oxford. The research remains a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed.
“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
What the Responses Cannot Establish
The survey records what respondents said they would do in a hypothetical offer scenario. It does not show whether they would quit, remain employed or change their views if they faced an actual job loss or received a real guaranteed-income offer. The findings therefore cannot establish how people will respond to AI-driven displacement in practice.
The paper is a 39-page first-version preprint, not a peer-reviewed study, and the author says numbers may change in later versions. Its political analysis also has limits: although the paper reports that purpose- and community-driven workers become more pessimistic when they expect AI to harm jobs in their industry, its tables do not show significant differences between the groups in populist vote intention. The author describes the analysis as relational rather than causal.
The source material does not provide enough detail to assess every survey question, classification choice or response pattern independently. The results should be read with the stated sampling limitations in mind, especially for India. Whether the profiles and hypothetical quit thresholds generalize to wider national workforces remains uncertain.
Peer Review and Further Evidence
The next formal step will be scrutiny of the preprint by researchers and any later revisions or peer review. The paper was submitted to arXiv in general economics on October 29, 2026; the source material does not identify a journal submission or a review timetable. Later versions could revise the estimates or clarify the survey methods.
For policymakers and employers, the findings are best treated as an early indication of what respondents say they value, not as a forecast of the social effects of AI. Stronger evidence would require tracking people over time, studying real job changes and comparing how different forms of income support or workplace alternatives affect well-being and participation. Those outcomes are not established by this survey.
Key Questions
What is the paper’s main finding?
About one in five survey respondents said they would stay in their job even if guaranteed income reached 120% of their current salary and benefits were preserved. The paper also found that many respondents ranked purpose, community or status above pay as their main work-related value.
Does the survey show that AI will replace 40% of white-collar jobs?
No. The 40% figure refers to white-collar respondents who said AI was at least somewhat likely to replace their job within ten years. It measures perceived risk, not predicted or confirmed job losses.
Would most respondents quit for less than their salary?
In the hypothetical exercise, a slight majority would leave at 80% of current salary, and about three-quarters would leave at 100%. Among people who accepted an offer, the median quit threshold was 70% of salary. These are stated answers, not observed decisions.
Has the study been peer-reviewed?
No. It was posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026 as a preprint and had not been peer-reviewed according to the source material.
Who funded the survey?
The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, Jacobs’s employer. It also states that the paper’s views do not necessarily reflect those of Google DeepMind or the University of Oxford.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
