🔍 Read the full analysis: Could AI Take More Than Our Jobs? Workers Consider What We Might Lose on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Prime made for students and young adults
- Fast, free delivery for dorm and study essentials
- Prime Video and Amazon Music included
- Member-only deals
TL;DR
A preprint based on a survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, US, Denmark and India finds that about one in five respondents would stay in their job even if offered guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary. The study suggests that purpose, belonging and status can matter alongside pay, but its findings are based on stated responses and do not establish how people would act in real job-loss situations.
A new unreviewed arXiv preprint reports that about one in five of 8,234 surveyed adults would not voluntarily leave their job even if offered guaranteed income equal to 120% of their current salary, with healthcare, pension and paid leave retained. The study, by Julian Jacobs of the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, examines what workers value beyond pay as artificial intelligence could reshape employment; its results reflect survey answers, not observed decisions.
The paper, What is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI, was submitted to arXiv on October 29, 2026. Its online survey was fielded in June and July by polling organization More in Common, with 8,234 working-age respondents: 2,032 in Denmark, 2,072 in India, 2,052 in the UK and 2,078 in the US. The study has not been peer-reviewed, and its results could change in later versions.
In the survey’s hypothetical income test, respondents were asked whether they would quit if guaranteed income rose in steps from 60% to 120% of their salary, while benefits remained intact. A slight majority said they would leave by the 80% offer, around three-quarters by the 100% offer, and about 20% still said they would stay at 120%. Among respondents who accepted an offer, the median threshold was 70% of salary.
The researchers also grouped workers according to their leading job values. Among those they could classify, 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 says 73.7% placed a non-financial reason first. The survey was supported by Google DeepMind, Jacobs’s employer, according to the paper, which says its views do not necessarily reflect those of Oxford or DeepMind.
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
Why Income May Not Replace Work
The findings speak to a policy question raised by possible AI-driven job disruption: would income support make up for losing a job, or does work also provide identity, social connection and a sense of contribution? Jacobs argues that a basic income may be necessary in an AI-related labor shock but could fail to compensate fully for what workers get from employment beyond wages. That is an interpretation of the survey, not a measured outcome of people losing jobs.
The study also suggests that non-monetary motivations are not confined to affluent workers. The reported share primarily driven by the work itself was 32% among low-income respondents, 33% among middle-income respondents and 34% among high-income respondents. The paper reports a similar share among craft and trade workers. If these patterns hold in other populations, employment and income policies may need to account for the social and personal roles jobs play as well as lost earnings.
At the same time, the paper estimates that purpose-driven respondents required only about 1.9 to 5.8 percentage points more guaranteed income than pay-driven respondents before choosing to quit, depending on the model. The authors’ estimates point to a measurable but relatively small difference in the hypothetical test. They do not show that purpose or community would prevent workers from accepting compensation or adapting to job changes.
Popular right now
Vitamix Propel Series 510 Professional-Grade Blender, 3 Programs, Black
Vitamix 5200 Professional-Grade Blender, 64 oz. Container, Black
Dyson V8 Cyclone Cordless Vacuum
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Survey Tested Job Value
The study combines questions about job priorities with a hypothetical “auction” for leaving work. Respondents considered guaranteed income at successive percentages of their current salary, with healthcare, pension and paid leave preserved. The design tests stated willingness to quit under a specified offer; it does not track actual resignations or displacement caused by AI.
Jacobs also examined respondents’ expectations about AI and employment. The paper reports that 40% of white-collar workers considered it at least somewhat likely that AI would replace their job within ten years, compared with 29% of manual and service workers. These are respondents’ perceptions, not forecasts verified against later job outcomes.
The analysis uses cross-sectional regressions with controls including income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time work and country. The author describes the analysis as “purely relational, not causal.” The India results require particular caution: the paper says its online sample was younger, more urban and more educated than India’s population as a whole.
““may indeed be necessary””
— Julian Jacobs, paper author
Limits of the Current Evidence
The central result comes from a hypothetical question. It is not clear whether respondents would make the same choices if they faced actual job elimination, uncertain future income, family obligations or changes to benefits. The survey also does not establish how AI will affect employment or whether the reported expectations will match future labor-market outcomes.
The preprint is a first version and has not undergone peer review. Its cross-sectional design cannot establish cause and effect. The paper’s political analysis is also limited: although it reports that purpose- and community-oriented respondents become more pessimistic when they expect AI to damage jobs in their industry, its tables do not show significant differences between those groups in populist voting intention.
The results may not represent all workers in the four countries, especially given the sampling limits noted for India. The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, and that funding relationship is relevant when evaluating the research; the source material does not report evidence that the funding changed the findings.
Peer Review and Further Evidence
The next academic milestone is peer review and any revisions Jacobs makes to the arXiv paper. Future versions may clarify the analysis or adjust its estimates, but no review outcome or publication schedule is specified in the source material.
To test whether the survey patterns predict real behavior, researchers would need evidence beyond stated preferences, such as longitudinal studies tracking job changes, income support and workers’ well-being as employment shifts. For now, the findings offer a snapshot of how respondents describe work’s value—not a measure of how people will respond to AI-related job losses.
Key Questions
What did the survey find about leaving work for guaranteed income?
About one in five respondents said they would stay even when offered guaranteed income equal to 120% of their current salary, with healthcare, pension and paid leave retained. The question was hypothetical.
Which non-financial reasons for work did respondents value?
The paper grouped responses around the work itself, including purpose, learning and contribution; relationships and belonging; and status and recognition. Among those classified, 73.7% put a non-money reason first.
Does the paper show that AI will take workers’ jobs?
No. It reports workers’ perceptions of risk: 40% 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 are expectations, not confirmed job losses.
Has the study been peer-reviewed?
No. The paper was posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026 as a preprint. Its findings may change, and its survey responses do not establish how people would behave in real employment decisions.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
