🔍 Read the full analysis: What Happens To Work’s Purpose When AI Can Do The Job? on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get the latest gadgets 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 adults in four countries finds that most respondents would leave work for guaranteed income below their current salary, while about one in five would stay even at 120% of pay. Its findings suggest work can provide purpose, belonging and status as well as money, but the study is not peer-reviewed and does not establish how people would act in a real job or an AI-driven job loss.
A new unreviewed arXiv preprint finds that about one in five of 8,234 surveyed adults would not quit their job even if offered guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary, with health coverage, pension and paid leave maintained. The study, by Julian Jacobs of the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, suggests that people may value work for reasons beyond pay as artificial intelligence reshapes employment, but its survey does not show how workers would behave in an actual job-loss or income-support scenario.
The survey was conducted online in June and July 2026 among working-age adults in Denmark, India, the United Kingdom and the United States. Respondents were asked at what level of guaranteed income, offered in steps from 60% to 120% of their current salary, they would voluntarily leave their job. The offer retained healthcare, pension and paid leave.
According to the paper, a slight majority would leave by an offer of 80% of salary; around three in four would leave at 100%. At 120%, about 20% said they would stay. The holdout share varied little by household income in the reported figures: 21% among lower-income respondents, 18% in the middle-income group and 22% among higher-income respondents. These are answers to a hypothetical question, not observed decisions.
The author also grouped respondents by their leading work values. Among those the paper could classify, 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-monetary reason first. The survey was supported by Google DeepMind, Jacobs’s employer; the paper says its views do not necessarily reflect those of DeepMind or Oxford.
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 Pay Cannot Capture
The results address a practical question for governments and employers: if AI reduces demand for some kinds of labor, can income support replace what people lose when a job disappears? The survey suggests that income is not the only reason people work. Purpose, learning, social ties and recognition may matter even to people who would accept a lower guaranteed income to stop working.
Jacobs argues that a basic income may be needed during an AI-related labor shock but may not compensate for work’s non-financial value. That is the author’s interpretation of survey responses, not a measured result about the effects of basic income. The findings do not establish that people need paid employment to find meaning or community, or that employers can preserve those benefits as jobs change.
The paper reports relatively small differences in the income people requested before quitting: after statistical controls, purpose-driven respondents required roughly 1.9 to 5.8 percentage points more guaranteed income than respondents primarily motivated by pay, depending on the model. That finding points to a measurable difference, but does not suggest that motivation alone determines whether someone stays in work.
Products Worth Considering
Apple Watch SE 3 GPS 44mm Smartwatch
Apple iPad Air (2025) 13‑inch Wi‑Fi 256 GB – Space Gray (M3 chip)
Bose QuietComfort Headphones (2nd Gen), Wireless Noise-Cancelling Over-Ear Headphones, Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Inside the Four-Country Survey
The paper, titled What is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI, was posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026. It is a 39-page, single-author preprint in general economics and has not been peer-reviewed. 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 conducted it using national quotas for age, gender, education and region.
To identify work values, the survey asked about factors such as pay, benefits, purpose, learning, contribution to society, belonging, social contact and status. It also asked respondents what they would do with their time if they left work, and about perceived AI-related job risks. The paper uses cross-sectional statistical models with controls including income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time work and country. Those methods can identify associations, but they cannot establish that a particular work value causes someone to stay employed.
The paper reports that 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. This reflects respondents’ expectations, not a forecast of actual job losses. The author also found no statistically significant difference between work-value groups in populist vote intention, limiting the political conclusions that can be drawn.
“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, author of the preprint
Limits of the Evidence
The findings come from a single online survey and a hypothetical quitting exercise. It is not clear whether respondents would make the same choices if they faced an actual offer, a real job loss, or uncertainty about whether future payments would continue. The sample also may not represent all workers equally; the paper notes that its Indian respondents were younger, more urban and more educated than India’s population overall.
The paper has not been peer-reviewed, and its estimates could change in later versions. Its reported links between work values, AI concerns and political attitudes are not causal findings. Nor does the survey determine how many jobs AI will replace, which workers will be affected, or whether income support could provide alternatives to the social and personal benefits some people associate with work.
Peer Review and Real-World Tests
The next step for the research is scrutiny by other researchers and any later revisions to the preprint. Further studies could test whether the stated willingness to quit predicts real decisions, and whether patterns hold across a broader range of countries and worker groups. Researchers could also compare workers’ stated values with changes in employment, income support and workplace arrangements.
For policymakers and employers, the study offers a reason to look beyond wages when considering AI-related disruption, but it does not prescribe a specific policy. How jobs will change, who will be affected and what forms of support will work remain open questions. The survey provides a snapshot of what respondents say they value now, rather than a forecast of AI’s labor-market effects.
Key Questions
What did the survey find about leaving work for guaranteed income?
According to the preprint, a slight majority would leave by an offer equal to 80% of current salary, and around three in four would leave at 100%. About one in five said they would stay even at 120%. These were hypothetical responses.
What reasons for working did respondents give?
The paper grouped respondents around four leading work values: the work itself, including purpose and learning; colleagues and belonging; status and recognition; and pay and benefits. It reports that 73.7% of classifiable respondents named a non-monetary reason first.
Does the study show that basic income cannot replace a job?
No. The author argues that income support may not replace all the benefits people associate with work, but the survey did not test a basic-income program or measure its effects. It records responses to a hypothetical offer.
Is the paper peer-reviewed?
No. It was posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026 as a preprint. Its findings have not yet undergone peer review, and later versions may revise the analysis.
Does the survey predict how many jobs AI will replace?
No. It reports workers’ expectations about whether AI could replace their jobs within ten years—40% of white-collar respondents and 29% of manual and service workers said this was at least somewhat likely. Those figures are perceptions, not forecasts.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
