🔍 Read the full analysis: What Is Work For In An Age When AI Can Do More? on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get smart everyday buys 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 by Julian Jacobs reports that about one in five survey respondents would not quit even if offered guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary, with benefits retained. The study suggests purpose, community and recognition matter alongside pay, but its findings are based on stated answers from an online survey and do not establish how people would behave in an actual AI-driven job disruption.
A new non-peer-reviewed preprint reports that about one in five of 8,234 working-age adults surveyed would not leave their job even for guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary, with health cover, pension and paid leave retained. The study, by Julian Jacobs of the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, examines whether income alone could replace what people say they get from work as artificial intelligence changes jobs.
The paper, What is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI, was submitted to arXiv on October 29, 2026. It draws on an online survey conducted in June and July by polling organization More in Common, covering adults in the UK, United States, Denmark and India. The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, Jacobs’s employer, and that its views do not necessarily represent the positions of Oxford or DeepMind. It has not been peer-reviewed.
In the survey’s hypothetical offer, participants were asked whether they would voluntarily quit if guaranteed income rose in steps from 60% to 120% of their current salary, while retaining specified benefits. A slight majority said they would leave at 80% of pay; about three in four would do so at 100%. At 120%, roughly 20% still said they would stay. Among those who accepted an offer, the reported median quit point was 70% of salary.
The study also grouped respondents by their leading stated reason for working. Among those the paper could classify, 33% were chiefly driven 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. In the paper’s figure, 73.7% placed a non-financial reason first. The reported share primarily motivated by the work itself was similar across income groups, at 32% for lower-income, 33% for middle-income and 34% for higher-income respondents.
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 speak to a policy question raised by the prospect of AI-related job disruption: if employment becomes less available, can cash payments replace what work provides? Jacobs argues that a basic income may be necessary in a labor-market shock but could fail to compensate people fully for purpose, social ties or recognition. That is an interpretation of survey responses, not a measured outcome of a basic-income program.
The distinction matters for employers and policymakers weighing how to respond to automation. If people value work for reasons beyond wages, replacing lost earnings may not address every consequence of job loss. The paper does not establish what support would work best, or how large any such effects would be. Its findings instead suggest that financial security and the social or personal role of work are separate questions that policy debates may need to address.
The study also reports that 40% of white-collar respondents considered it at least somewhat likely that AI would replace their job within ten years, compared with 29% of manual and service workers. Those figures reflect respondents’ expectations, not forecasts of actual job losses.
Products Worth Considering
Logitech MX Master 4 for Mac, Ergonomic Bluetooth Mouse with Haptic Feedback, Ultra-Fast Scrolling, USB-C Charging, for MacOS, iPadOS, Windo
FLEXISPOT EN1-PRO Electric Standing Desk, 79 x 32, Black Walnut
FLEXISPOT 36-Inch Height-Adjustable Standing Desk Converter
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Survey Tested Work
The study used an original online survey of 8,234 working-age adults: 2,032 in Denmark, 2,072 in India, 2,052 in the UK and 2,078 in the United States. More in Common fielded it in June and July 2026, using national quotas for age, gender, education and region. The author used questions about job values, a hypothetical guaranteed-income offer, intended use of free time, perceived AI threats and political views.
Respondents rated eight job-related factors, including pay, benefits, purpose, learning, contribution to society, belonging, social contact and status. The paper sorted answers into four “Work Values Profiles.” Its statistical models account for factors including income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time work and country. Because the data are cross-sectional and self-reported, they describe relationships and stated preferences at one point in time, rather than showing how people behave after losing a job.
The reported share willing to stay at 120% varied by country: 16.0% in the UK, 17.9% in the US, 17.9% in Denmark and 28.8% in India. The paper notes that its Indian online sample was younger, more urban and more educated than the country as a whole. The author also says the analysis is “purely relational, not causal,” a limitation relevant to claims about AI and political attitudes.
““may indeed be necessary””
— Julian Jacobs, author of the preprint
What Stated Preferences Cannot Show
The quit question was a hypothetical scenario. The survey does not show whether respondents would actually leave a job at the stated income levels, nor whether guaranteed payments could reproduce the routine, relationships or status associated with employment. The reported results should not be treated as a prediction of how workers will respond to real layoffs or automation.
The preprint has not been peer-reviewed, and the author says later versions may change. Its online samples and country differences also limit how confidently the results can be generalized, particularly where the sample did not closely reflect the broader population. The paper reports that purpose- and community-oriented workers were more pessimistic about AI when they expected harm to jobs in their industry, but its tables found no significant differences among the groups in populist vote intention. The direction and cause of any relationship remain unsettled.
Peer Review and Further Evidence
The immediate next step is for the preprint to receive scrutiny from researchers and for any revised version to clarify or update its methods and findings. The source material does not give a timetable for peer review or further publication. Until then, the reported percentages remain findings from one survey, rather than settled estimates of how workers will respond to AI-related employment changes.
Further evidence would need to test whether stated preferences predict real choices, and whether results hold across more representative samples and different labor markets. For policymakers, the open question is not only how to replace earnings if jobs disappear, but whether other forms of support can address the purpose, community and recognition some respondents associate with work. The survey raises that issue; it does not resolve it.
Key Questions
What did the study find about quitting for guaranteed income?
In a hypothetical offer that preserved health cover, pension and paid leave, about three in four respondents would leave at 100% of their salary. Roughly one in five said they would still stay at 120%.
Who conducted the research, and has it been peer-reviewed?
The preprint was written by Julian Jacobs of the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind and posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026. It has not been peer-reviewed.
Does the paper prove that basic income cannot replace work?
No. It records answers to a hypothetical survey question. The author argues that income could fail to replace some non-financial benefits of work, but the study does not test a basic-income program or actual job departures.
How many people said work itself mattered most?
Among respondents the paper could classify, 33% were mainly motivated by the work itself, including purpose, learning or contribution. The paper also reports groups motivated chiefly by colleagues and belonging, status and recognition, or pay and benefits.
What does the study say about AI replacing jobs?
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. These are survey respondents’ expectations, not estimates of future job losses.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
