🔍 Read the full analysis: A New Survey Explores What Work Means When AI Can Do The Job on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on tech for your team
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
A June–July 2026 survey of 8,234 working-age adults in four countries asked whether they would quit if guaranteed income replaced their salary. About one in five said they would stay even at 120% of their current pay, while the paper’s author argues that income alone may not replace the nonfinancial value people get from work. The findings come from an unreviewed preprint and do not establish how workers would behave in an actual AI-driven job disruption.
A new survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the United Kingdom, United States, Denmark and India found that about one in five would not quit even if offered guaranteed income equal to 120% of their current salary, with health coverage, pension and paid leave preserved. The findings, published October 29 in an arXiv preprint by University of Oxford researcher Julian Jacobs, examine what people value in work as artificial intelligence raises concerns about job displacement.
The survey presented respondents with an escalating offer: guaranteed income beginning at 60% of current salary, rising in 10-point increments to 120%, while keeping specified benefits. Respondents were asked whether they would voluntarily leave their jobs at each level. The paper reports that a slight majority would quit by an offer worth 80% of salary, about three-quarters would do so at 100%, and roughly 20% would still refuse at 120%. Among those willing to leave, the median threshold was 70% of salary and the average was 76%.
The paper also groups respondents by their stated work values. Among respondents the author could classify, 33% were primarily motivated by the work itself, including purpose, learning and contribution; 23% by colleagues and belonging; 17% by status and recognition; and 26% by pay and benefits. The paper says 73.7% put a nonfinancial reason first. The share primarily motivated by the work itself was similar across household income categories—32% for low-income, 33% for middle-income and 34% for high-income respondents—and about a third among craft and trade workers.
These figures describe answers to a hypothetical survey, not observed decisions or predictions of how people would respond to job losses. Jacobs argues that income support may be needed in an AI-related labor shock but may not replace the purpose, relationships or recognition people associate with jobs. The study’s regression results suggest purpose-driven respondents required a higher guaranteed-income offer than pay-driven respondents before saying they would quit, by about 1.9 to 5.8 percentage points, depending on the analysis. At a $60,000 salary, the paper translates that difference to roughly $1,100 to $3,500 annually.
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 policy question that could grow more pressing if AI reduces demand for some kinds of labor: whether replacing wages is enough to address the consequences of lost work. The survey suggests that many people would accept less than their current salary to stop working, but a substantial minority say they would remain employed even with a higher guaranteed income. That contrast cautions against treating workers as a single group with identical preferences.
For employers and policymakers, the paper points to possible nonfinancial effects of job disruption, including lost routines, social ties, purpose and recognition. Those are interpretations of respondents’ stated priorities, not measured outcomes after displacement. The study does not show that any specific workplace program or income policy would replace those benefits, nor does it establish how widespread AI-related job losses will be.
Products Worth Considering
Bose QuietComfort Headphones (2nd Gen), Wireless Noise-Cancelling Over-Ear Headphones, Black
DJI Mini 4K Fly More Combo
Bose QuietComfort Ultra Wireless Noise-Cancelling Headphones with Spatial Audio, Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Survey Was Conducted
The paper, titled What is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI, is a 39-page, single-author preprint by Julian Jacobs, affiliated with the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind. It was posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026, in the General Economics category. It has not been peer-reviewed, and the reported estimates may change in later versions.
More in Common fielded the online survey in June and July 2026, collecting responses 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 says the research was supported by Google DeepMind, Jacobs’s employer, and states that its views do not necessarily reflect those of Oxford or DeepMind.
In addition to questions about work values and the guaranteed-income offer, respondents were asked how they would spend their time, how likely they thought AI was to replace their job, and about political attitudes. The paper reports that 40% of white-collar respondents considered AI at least somewhat likely to replace their job within 10 years, compared with 29% of manual and service workers. These are respondents’ expectations, not estimates of actual displacement.
“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 Preprint Evidence
The results are based on a hypothetical choice rather than real offers, job exits or income-support programs. It is not clear whether respondents would make the same decisions when facing actual changes to their work, finances or benefits. The survey also cannot establish that AI will cause the job losses respondents fear.
The paper is not peer-reviewed, and its author says the analysis is not causal. Its political findings are particularly limited: although the paper reports links between expectations of industry job impacts and pessimism among some work-value groups, its tables do not show statistically significant differences between those groups in populist vote intention. The India results also require caution: the paper describes its online sample as younger, more urban and more educated than India’s population overall.
It remains unclear whether later versions will revise the estimates, how representative the survey is beyond its quotas, and whether the reported differences would persist across other countries or over time. The results measure stated preferences in four countries during June and July 2026, not a universal account of what work means.
Peer Review and Further Evidence
The immediate next step is for the preprint to receive scrutiny from other researchers and, potentially, appear in a revised version. Because it is currently an unreviewed first version, its figures and interpretations should be treated as provisional. The paper’s disclosed funding and sampling approach are also relevant to that review.
Further evidence would be needed to test whether stated preferences predict real decisions: for example, studies following workers through actual job changes or evaluating income-support programs and workplace alternatives. Until then, the survey offers a snapshot of how respondents describe their priorities, not a settled answer to how societies should respond if AI changes the availability or nature of work.
Key Questions
What did the survey find about workers quitting for guaranteed income?
In the hypothetical survey, about three-quarters said they would quit when guaranteed income reached 100% of their salary, while about one in five would still stay at 120%. Benefits such as health coverage, pension and paid leave were held constant in the offer.
Who conducted the research, and when was it published?
Julian Jacobs, affiliated with the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, authored the paper. It was posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026, and has not been peer-reviewed.
Does the study prove that AI will replace workers?
No. The survey asked people how likely they thought AI was to replace their jobs; it did not measure future job losses. The responses are expectations, not forecasts of actual displacement.
Can guaranteed income replace what people get from work?
The paper’s author argues that income alone may not replace purpose, learning, belonging or recognition. The survey records stated preferences, however, and does not test whether a particular income policy or other intervention can replace those aspects of work.
What are the main limitations of the findings?
The study is an unreviewed preprint based on an online survey and a hypothetical choice. Its analysis is cross-sectional and, as the author says, not causal; some country samples may also be less representative of their populations than the survey quotas suggest.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
