🔍 Read the full analysis: What Would AI Taking Our Jobs Mean For The Value Of Work? on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
TL;DR
A preprint based on a survey of 8,234 working-age adults finds that most respondents would leave their jobs for guaranteed income below their current salary, but about one in five would stay even at 120%. The study suggests work can provide purpose, community and status beyond pay, but its findings are based on stated answers, not observed behavior, and do not show that AI will eliminate those jobs.
A new unreviewed preprint on work and artificial intelligence reports that about one in five of 8,234 surveyed adults would not quit even if offered guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary, with health coverage, pension and paid leave preserved. The study, by Julian Jacobs of the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, suggests that pay alone may not replace the purpose, social ties and recognition some people associate with work—but it measures stated preferences, not what workers would actually do or how many jobs AI will replace.
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 draws on an online survey fielded in June and July by More in Common among working-age adults in Denmark, India, the United Kingdom and the United States. The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, Jacobs’ employer, and notes that its views do not necessarily reflect the positions of Oxford or DeepMind.
In the survey’s hypothetical offer, respondents were asked whether they would voluntarily leave work for guaranteed income starting at 60% of current salary and rising in 10-point steps to 120%, while retaining healthcare, pension and paid leave. Across the four countries, a slight majority said they would leave at 80% of salary; about three-quarters would leave at 100%. The share declining to quit at 120% was about 20%. These are responses to a survey scenario, not observed decisions.
The author also sorted respondents into profiles based on what they said mattered in a job. Among those 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 reports that 73.7% put a non-financial reason first. In adjusted analyses, purpose-driven respondents required 1.9 to 5.8 percentage points more guaranteed income to say they would quit than respondents primarily motivated by pay, depending on the statistical method.
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 Replace
The findings speak to a question likely to grow more pressing as employers adopt AI: if technology reduces demand for some kinds of labor, is replacing wages enough to address the consequences? The survey suggests that some people value jobs for more than income, including social connection, recognition and a sense of contribution. That can matter to policymakers weighing income support and to employers considering how AI changes roles and workplaces.
But the paper does not establish what any policy should be. Its results do not show that a basic income would fail, nor do they measure the effects of actual job loss. The author argues that income support may be needed in an AI-driven labor shock while potentially falling short of replacing nonfinancial benefits of work. That is an interpretation of survey responses, not a demonstrated outcome.
The scale of the reported differences also calls for proportion. The adjusted gap in the income respondents would accept to leave was small in percentage-point terms. The survey captures views at one point in time, and answers to a hypothetical offer may differ from behavior under real financial, family or workplace pressures.
Popular right now
Bose QuietComfort Ultra Wireless Noise-Cancelling Headphones with Spatial Audio, Black
TCL QM64L 85-Inch QD-Mini LED 4K Smart Fire TV
De'Longhi 15-Bar Pump Espresso Machine with Milk Frother & Temperature Control
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Survey Tested Work
The survey included 8,234 working-age adults: 2,032 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 used a nine-item set of questions about job values, a guaranteed-income question, and questions about how respondents might spend their time, their views of AI-related job risks and political attitudes.
Jacobs’ paper is a 39-page arXiv preprint, listed in General Economics, and had not been peer-reviewed in the source material. It uses cross-sectional regression models with controls including income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time work and country. The author says the analysis is “purely relational, not causal.” That limits what can be concluded about whether work values cause particular views about AI or politics.
On perceived exposure, 40% of white-collar respondents said AI was at least somewhat likely to replace their job within 10 years, compared with 29% of manual and service workers. Those figures describe respondents’ expectations, not forecasts of job losses. The paper also reports that purpose- and community-oriented respondents became more pessimistic when they expected AI to hurt jobs in their industry, but its tables did not show significant differences between work-value groups in populist vote intention.
„“purely relational, not causal.”“
— Julian Jacobs, paper author
What the Survey Cannot Show
The study does not establish whether respondents would make the same choices in real circumstances, when household budgets, access to benefits, job prospects and personal responsibilities are at stake. It also cannot show how AI will affect employment: the job-replacement percentages are perceptions, and the survey is not a labor-market forecast.
The paper is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed, so its methods and results may be revised. The online samples were quota-based; the author notes that India’s sample was younger, more urban and more educated than the country as a whole. The reported differences by country should be read with that limitation in mind. The survey also does not answer which jobs or communities might lose workplace ties, purpose or status if employment changes.
Peer Review and Later Versions
The immediate next step is scrutiny of the preprint’s methods and results by other researchers. Because the paper is an initial version, later revisions could change its estimates or address concerns about the survey design and interpretation. The source material does not identify a peer-review date or a planned follow-up study.
For readers tracking the broader AI jobs debate, this research offers evidence about what surveyed adults say they value in work, not a forecast of employment losses or a test of income-support policies. Those questions will require further evidence, including studies that follow workers over time and examine outcomes when jobs or working conditions actually change.
Key Questions
What did the survey find about leaving work for guaranteed income?
In the hypothetical scenario, a slight majority would leave at 80% of current salary, about three-quarters at 100%, and about one in five would still decline at 120%, with health coverage, pension and paid leave maintained.
Does the paper show that AI will take people’s jobs?
No. It reports respondents’ expectations about AI and job replacement. It does not forecast job losses or establish how many jobs AI will replace.
Why would some people stay even with higher guaranteed income?
The paper groups some respondents as primarily motivated by purpose, learning, contribution, colleagues or status. Its survey suggests these non-pay factors can matter, but it does not establish why any individual would stay in a real-world situation.
Has the study been peer-reviewed?
No. The source describes it as a preprint posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026. Its findings may change in later versions.
Who funded the survey?
The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, Jacobs’ employer. It also says the paper’s views do not necessarily reflect those of DeepMind or the University of Oxford.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
