🔍 Read the full analysis: How AI’s Impact On Jobs Raises Questions About Work’s Purpose 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 working paper based on a June–July 2026 survey of 8,234 adults in four countries finds that most respondents would leave their jobs for guaranteed income, but about one in five said they would stay even when offered 120% of their salary. The author argues that income may not replace the purpose, social ties and recognition people get from work, while noting that the survey measures stated preferences—not real behavior—and does not establish that AI causes job losses or political change.
A new working paper based on a survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the United Kingdom, United States, Denmark and India finds that roughly one in five respondents would not leave their job even if offered guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary. The findings add evidence to debate over whether income support could replace the purpose, relationships and recognition people associate with work as AI changes employment, but the study records stated preferences rather than actual choices.
The paper, What Is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI, was posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026. Its author, Julian Jacobs, is affiliated with the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind. The 39-page paper is a version-one preprint and has not been peer-reviewed, so its results may change in later versions.
Participants were asked whether they would voluntarily quit if offered guaranteed income in steps from 60% to 120% of their current salary, while keeping healthcare, pension and paid leave. The paper reports that a slight majority would leave at 80% of salary and about three in four would do so at 100%. At 120%, about 20% said they would stay. Among respondents who accepted an offer, the median point at which they would quit was 70% of salary.
Jacobs also groups respondents by the reasons they say matter in a job. Among those the paper could classify, 33% were primarily motivated by the work itself, including purpose and learning; 23% by colleagues and belonging; 17% by status and recognition; and 26% by pay and benefits. The paper’s figure says 73.7% put a non-monetary reason first. These categories reflect survey answers, not observed behavior or a measure of how much each factor affects job performance.
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 results point to a practical question for governments and employers: if AI reduces demand for some kinds of labor, would income support alone address what people lose? Jacobs argues that a basic income may be necessary in an AI-related labor shock but could fail to compensate for work’s non-financial value. That is the author’s interpretation of survey responses, not a tested forecast of how people would respond to unemployment or policy changes.
The paper estimates that people primarily motivated by purpose would require about 1.9 to 5.8 percentage points more guaranteed income to quit than those primarily motivated by pay, depending on the statistical method. At an annual salary of $60,000, the paper translates that gap to roughly $1,100 to $3,500. The estimates are modest, and they do not mean that purpose-driven workers would refuse all income offers.
The findings also caution against assuming that a universal payment would make the consequences of job displacement straightforward. Work can provide routines, social contact and a sense of contribution, but the survey does not establish that a job is the only way to obtain those things—or that every worker values them in the same way.
Products Worth Considering
Apple MacBook Air 13-inch with M5 chip, 16GB memory, 1TB SSD, and 12MP Center Stage camera (Midnight)
FLEXISPOT EN1-PRO Electric Standing Desk, 79 x 32, Black Walnut
Dell XPS 13 9350 Copilot+ Laptop, 13.4-inch 120Hz Display, Intel Core Ultra 7 256V, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD, Ubuntu Linux 24.04 LTS
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Survey Tested Work’s Value
The online survey was fielded in June and July 2026 by polling organization More in Common. It included 2,032 respondents in Denmark, 2,072 in India, 2,052 in the UK and 2,078 in the US. National quotas were used for age, gender, education and region. The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, Jacobs’s employer, and that its views do not necessarily reflect those of Oxford or DeepMind.
Alongside the income-offer exercise, participants answered questions about job values, how they would use their time without work, perceived AI-related job risk and politics. The analysis uses cross-sectional regressions with controls including income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time work and country. The design can identify relationships in the responses; it cannot show that one factor caused another or track how views change over time.
Concern about AI differed by type of work in the survey: 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 respondents’ expectations, not forecasts of actual job losses. The paper also reports that purpose- and community-oriented respondents were more pessimistic when they expected AI to harm jobs in their industry.
“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 working paper
Limits of the Evidence
The survey asks what people say they would do in a hypothetical offer scenario. It does not show whether they would actually quit when offered guaranteed income, how long they might remain outside work, or whether their preferences would change after a job loss. The results also do not establish how AI will affect employment or whether the respondents’ fears about replacement will come true.
The sample has limits. Although it used national quotas, the paper notes that India’s online sample was younger, more urban and more educated than the country’s population overall. The work is also an unreviewed preprint, and its author reports that Google DeepMind supported the survey. Readers should treat the estimates as provisional and take the disclosed funding into account.
The political findings are especially limited: the paper’s tables do not show significant differences between work-value groups in populist vote intention. It therefore does not establish that AI-related job concerns will produce a particular political response. The size and distribution of any future AI-driven employment disruption also remain unknown.
Peer Review and Further Evidence
The paper may be revised as it receives scrutiny or new evidence, but no peer-review decision or next version is specified in the source material. A next step for researchers would be to compare these stated preferences with observed choices, including how people respond to actual job transitions or income-support programs.
For readers tracking AI and employment, the survey offers a snapshot of views collected in mid-2026—not a forecast of workforce outcomes. Future studies could test whether responses differ across occupations, countries and levels of exposure to AI, and whether reported values predict behavior over time. Until then, the paper’s results support a question for policy debate, not a settled answer about what work will become.
Key Questions
What did the survey find about leaving work for guaranteed income?
The paper reports that about three in four respondents would leave at an offer equal to their current salary. About 20% said they would stay even at 120% of salary. These were answers to a hypothetical question.
Who conducted the study, and has it been peer-reviewed?
The paper was written by Julian Jacobs, affiliated with the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, and posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026. It is a version-one preprint and has not been peer-reviewed. The paper says Google DeepMind supported the survey.
Does the paper show that AI will replace workers’ jobs?
No. It reports workers’ expectations about AI and their answers to work-value questions. It does not measure future job losses or prove that AI causes changes in employment.
Does the study prove that basic income cannot replace work?
No. Jacobs argues that basic income could leave some non-financial needs unmet, but the survey does not test an actual income-support program or observe people after they leave work. The conclusion is an interpretation of stated preferences.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
