🔍 Read the full analysis: An AI Future Raises An Old Question: What Is Work For? on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on office and shipping supplies
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
A preprint based on a 2026 survey of 8,234 working-age adults in four countries finds that most respondents would leave their jobs for guaranteed income below their current salary. About one in five said they would stay even when offered 120% of their salary, suggesting that pay is not the only reason people work. The study is not peer-reviewed, and its findings describe stated preferences rather than observed behavior.
A survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the United States, United Kingdom, Denmark and India found that about one in five would not leave a job even for guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary, with health coverage, pension and paid leave retained. The finding appears in a new, not-yet-peer-reviewed arXiv preprint by Julian Jacobs of the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, which examines whether money alone can replace what people get from work as artificial intelligence reshapes jobs.
The paper, titled What Is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI, was submitted to arXiv on October 29, 2026. Its survey, fielded by More in Common in June and July, asked participants whether they would voluntarily quit if offered a guaranteed income set at successive shares of their current salary, from 60% to 120%. The hypothetical offer preserved healthcare, pension and paid leave.
Across the four-country sample, a slight majority said they would leave by the time the offer reached 80% of their salary; around three-quarters would leave at 100%. Among those who accepted an offer, the median quit point was 70% of salary. At 120%, roughly 20% remained unwilling to quit. The paper reports that this holdout share varied little by household income: 21% among lower-income respondents, 18% in the middle-income group and 22% among higher-income respondents.
Jacobs also grouped respondents by what they said mattered in a job. Among respondents the paper classified, 33% were primarily motivated 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% named a nonfinancial reason first. These are survey responses, not measurements of what people actually do when offered such an arrangement.
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 Cannot Measure
The results matter to debates about how to respond if AI reduces demand for human labor. A guaranteed income could address lost wages, but the paper argues it may not replace work’s other roles: structure, social contact, recognition, learning and a sense of contribution. Jacobs writes that a basic income “may indeed be necessary” in an AI-driven labor shock, while warning it “could ultimately fail to compensate workers” for what work provides beyond money.
That is an interpretation of the survey, not evidence that a particular income policy would fail. Still, the findings suggest that discussions of automation and social support may need to address more than income replacement. Employers and policymakers may also need to consider how people would find purpose, community and recognition if jobs change or disappear. The survey does not establish which alternatives would work.
The paper reports a small association between work motivations and the income respondents required to quit. After statistical controls, people primarily motivated by purpose asked for about 1.9 to 5.8 percentage points more salary than people primarily motivated by pay, depending on the model. At an annual salary of $60,000, that would amount to roughly $1,100 to $3,500. The result is a modeled difference, not a direct estimate of future policy costs.
Popular right now
Vitamix 5200 Professional-Grade Blender, 64 oz. Container, Black
Apple AirPods Pro 3 Wireless Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation
Shark Rocket Corded Stick Vacuum (HV301) – Gray/Orange
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Survey Tested Work
The study used an online survey with national quotas for age, gender, education and region. The sample included 2,032 respondents in Denmark, 2,072 in India, 2,052 in the UK and 2,078 in the US. A set of questions asked about job values, willingness to quit for guaranteed income, plans for time outside work, perceptions of AI-related job risk and political views. The analysis used cross-sectional statistical models with controls including income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time work and country.
The salary offer was a thought experiment, not a real opportunity to leave a job. Respondents considered a guaranteed payment while retaining specified benefits, then indicated whether they would quit at each level. That design makes it possible to compare stated preferences, but it cannot show whether people would act the same way in real circumstances, where household obligations, job availability and changing costs could matter.
The preprint says its survey was supported by Google DeepMind, Jacobs’s employer, and that its views do not necessarily reflect those of Oxford or DeepMind. The paper is a 39-page, single-author version one submitted to arXiv in general economics; it has not been peer-reviewed, and figures or conclusions may change in later versions.
““may indeed be necessary””
— Julian Jacobs, University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, in the preprint
Limits of the Findings
The findings are based on an online survey and hypothetical choices, not observed decisions to leave employment. It is not clear whether respondents would behave the same way if they faced an actual guaranteed-income offer, or how the results would change under different benefit terms, household circumstances or economic conditions. The survey also covers four countries and should not be treated as a direct estimate for every workforce.
The paper reports that 40% of white-collar respondents considered it at least somewhat likely that AI would replace their job within 10 years, compared with 29% of manual and service workers. Those figures measure respondents’ expectations, not verified forecasts of job losses. The political findings are less conclusive: the paper reports no statistically significant differences in populist vote intention across its work-value groups and says its analysis is correlational. The paper has not been peer-reviewed, and the India sample was younger, more urban and more educated than the country’s overall population.
Peer Review and Further Evidence
The immediate next step is further scrutiny of the preprint’s methods and results. It is not yet clear whether Jacobs will publish a revised version, submit the work to a peer-reviewed journal or add new data. Because the paper is labeled version one, its findings may be updated.
For readers and policymakers, the key question is whether these stated preferences hold up in real-world settings. Evidence from actual income-support programs, workplace changes and longer-term studies could help test whether money alone meets people’s needs when jobs are lost or redesigned. The present survey raises that issue; it does not settle it.
Key Questions
What is the new paper about?
It examines what people say work provides beyond wages and whether they would quit if offered guaranteed income. The paper focuses on how those answers relate to AI-related job concerns.
How many people said they would stay at 120% of salary?
About one in five respondents said they would not quit even at 120% of their current salary, with healthcare, pension and paid leave included. This was a hypothetical survey response, not a real job offer.
Does the study show that basic income cannot replace work?
No. Jacobs argues that income may not compensate for all the nonfinancial benefits people associate with work, but the survey does not test a basic-income program or establish how people would behave in practice.
Has the study been peer-reviewed?
No. It was submitted to arXiv on October 29, 2026, as a version-one preprint and has not been peer-reviewed.
Who funded the survey?
The preprint says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, where Jacobs works. It also says the views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of DeepMind or the University of Oxford.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
