Read the full analysis: What Would Be Missing If AI Did Our Jobs? Workers Weigh In on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
TL;DR
A 2026 survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, US, Denmark and India found that about one in five would refuse to quit even for guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary, with benefits retained. The arXiv paper argues that work provides meaning, community and status as well as income, but it is a preprint based on stated preferences—not observed behavior—and its findings do not show that AI causes political change.
A survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, United States, Denmark and India found that roughly 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 retained. The finding is part of a non-peer-reviewed arXiv preprint by Julian Jacobs of the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, which examines what workers say they get from jobs beyond pay as artificial intelligence raises questions about employment.
The paper, “What is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI,” was posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026. Jacobs draws on an online survey fielded in June and July by polling organization More in Common. Respondents were asked at what level of guaranteed income they would voluntarily quit, starting at 60% of current salary and rising in steps to 120%, while keeping specified benefits.
Most respondents said they would leave for less than their current pay: a slight majority would quit at 80% of salary, around three-quarters at 100%, and about 20% would still stay at 120%. Among those who accepted an offer, the median stated quitting point was 70% of salary. These are responses to a hypothetical question; the survey did not track actual job decisions.
The paper groups workers by their stated job priorities. Among respondents the analysis classified, 33% were primarily motivated by the work itself, including purpose, learning or contribution; 23% by colleagues and belonging; 17% by status and recognition; and 26% by pay and benefits. The paper reports that 73.7% put a non-financial reason first. The share primarily motivated by the work itself was similar across income groups, at 32% for low-income, 33% for middle-income and 34% for high-income respondents.
Survey · 4 countries
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
United States38%United Kingdom32%Denmark19%Indiaonline sample, skews urban and educated15%
Meaning is not a luxury
Share driven by the work itself (intrinsic), by household income third
Low income32%Middle income33%High income34%
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 Pay Cannot Replace
The results suggest that an income guarantee alone may not address everything workers say they value in employment. For people whose main motivation is purpose, learning or contribution, as well as those who value colleagues and recognition, leaving a job could mean losing more than wages. That matters as policymakers and employers consider responses to possible AI-driven changes in work.
Jacobs argues that a basic income “may indeed be necessary” during an AI labor shock, but could fail to compensate for work’s non-financial benefits. That is the author’s interpretation of stated survey preferences, not evidence that a particular income policy would fail in practice. The estimated differences in requested income were also modest: after statistical controls, purpose-driven respondents required about 1.9 to 5.8 percentage points more guaranteed income to quit than pay-driven respondents, depending on the model.
The survey also records concern about job replacement. Forty percent of white-collar respondents said AI was at least somewhat likely to replace their job within ten years, compared with 29% of manual and service workers. Those figures describe respondents’ expectations, not measured probabilities of job loss.
How the Survey Tested Work
The survey included 2,032 respondents in Denmark, 2,072 in India, 2,052 in the UK and 2,078 in the US. More in Common used national quotas for age, gender, education and region. The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, Jacobs’s employer, and states that its views do not necessarily reflect those of Oxford or DeepMind.
Respondents rated what mattered in a job, including pay, benefits, purpose, learning, social contribution, belonging, meeting people and status. The researchers used those answers to assign “Work Values Profiles,” then compared them with responses to the guaranteed-income question and questions about AI and politics. The analysis uses cross-sectional regressions with controls including income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time work and country.
The findings appeared in a 39-page version-one preprint in arXiv’s General Economics category. It has not been peer-reviewed, and the source account notes that numbers could change in later versions. A result from a survey of stated preferences is not the same as observing what people would do if offered a real payment and a chance to leave work.
““may indeed be necessary””
— Julian Jacobs, paper author
Limits of the Findings
The survey measures hypothetical choices, not decisions made when workers face an actual guaranteed payment. It cannot establish how many people would leave a job, what they would do afterward or whether employers would offer the terms described. The responses may also depend on how participants interpreted the scenario and the value of keeping benefits.
The paper is a preprint, not a peer-reviewed study. Its results rely on online samples, and the source notes that India’s respondents were younger, more urban and more educated than the country’s population overall. The survey quotas and statistical controls do not by themselves remove every potential sampling or measurement limitation.
The political findings are especially limited. The paper reports that workers motivated by purpose or community become more pessimistic when they expect AI to hurt jobs in their industry, but its tables do not show significant differences between those groups in populist vote intention. The analysis does not establish that AI fears or job values cause political views or changes in voting.
Peer Review and Further Evidence
The immediate next step is scrutiny of the preprint’s methods and results, including any revisions Jacobs may post. The paper’s current figures should be treated as provisional until they have been assessed through peer review and, ideally, compared with other research.
Further evidence would need to test whether stated preferences predict real choices, and how people respond when income, benefits and opportunities for social connection or purposeful activity are actually available. The current material does not give a date for peer review, a follow-up survey or a policy decision tied to the findings. For now, the paper offers a snapshot of what respondents say work means to them—not a forecast of how many jobs AI will replace or how workers will act.
Key Questions
What did the survey find about quitting for guaranteed income?
About one in five respondents said they would not quit even for guaranteed income equal to 120% of their current salary, with health coverage, pension and paid leave retained. Most said they would leave at a lower level, but these were hypothetical responses.
Who conducted the research?
The paper was written by Julian Jacobs, affiliated with the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind. More in Common fielded the online survey in June and July 2026; the paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind.
Has the paper been peer-reviewed?
No. It was posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026, as a version-one preprint and has not been peer-reviewed.
Does the study show that AI will replace these workers’ jobs?
No. It reports workers’ views about the likelihood of replacement, including 40% of white-collar respondents who considered it at least somewhat likely within ten years. It does not measure future job losses or establish that replacement will occur.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com