🔍 Read the full analysis: Beyond Employment: What 8,234 Workers Say Work Provides In An AI Era on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on office and shipping supplies
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
A preprint analyzing a survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, US, Denmark and India finds that many respondents value purpose, social ties or recognition at work alongside pay. About one in five said they would not quit even for guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary, but the findings are based on stated preferences, not observed behavior, and the paper has not been peer-reviewed.
A survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, United States, Denmark and India found that about one in five would not quit even if offered guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary with health coverage, pension and paid leave maintained. The result is reported in an October 29 arXiv preprint by Julian Jacobs of the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, which examines what people say work provides beyond wages as artificial intelligence changes the labor market.
The survey asked respondents to consider a hypothetical offer of guaranteed income, starting at 60% of their current salary and rising in steps to 120%. At each level, they were asked whether they would voluntarily leave their job while retaining specified benefits. The answers are stated preferences in a survey; they do not show how people would act if such an offer were real.
Among respondents who could be assigned a work-values profile, the paper reports that 33% prioritized the work itself, including purpose, learning or contribution; 23% prioritized colleagues and belonging; 17% status and recognition; and 26% pay and benefits. In the paper’s figure, 73.7% named a non-financial reason first. The reported share focused on the work itself was similar across income groups: 32% among lower-income respondents, 33% in the middle group and 34% among higher-income respondents.
Most respondents said they would leave at a lower offer: a slight majority by 80% of salary, around 65% by 90%, and about three-quarters at full salary. Among those who accepted an offer, the median point at which they would quit was 70% of current pay, with an average of 76%. The share declining even 120% was 21% among lower-income respondents, 18% in the middle group and 22% among 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
Income Cannot Capture Every Work Value
The findings bear on proposals to compensate people if AI reduces demand for their labor. The paper’s author argues that a basic income may be necessary during an AI-related labor shock, but that cash alone could fail to replace benefits people associate with work, such as purpose, learning, social contact and recognition. That is an interpretation of survey responses, not a measured forecast of how people would respond to job loss or a real income guarantee.
The results also complicate a simple account of workers’ preferences. Most respondents in the hypothetical test would leave for less than their current salary if the payment were guaranteed, while a minority said they would remain even at more than their existing pay. The paper reports that purpose-driven respondents required roughly 1.9 to 5.8 percentage points more guaranteed income to quit than pay-driven respondents, depending on the statistical method. At a $60,000 salary, the author translates that gap to about $1,100 to $3,500 a year. These are model-based estimates, not observed wage demands.
For employers and policymakers, the distinction matters because income support and the non-financial roles of work are separate questions. The survey suggests those roles may matter across income levels, but it does not establish which jobs, programs or workplace changes would replace them.
Products Worth Considering
Dell XPS 13 9350 AI Professional Laptop 13.4 120Hz FHD+ Display
Dell P2725H 27-Inch Full HD Monitor
HP Sprocket Panorama Portable Color Photo and Label Printer
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Four-Country Survey Was Run
The preprint, titled What is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI, was written by Julian Jacobs, affiliated with the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind. It was submitted to arXiv on October 29, 2026, as a 39-page paper. It has not been peer-reviewed, and its results could change in later versions.
The online survey was fielded in June and July 2026 by the polling organization More in Common. It included 2,032 adults in Denmark, 2,072 in India, 2,052 in the UK and 2,078 in the US, with national quotas for age, gender, education and region. The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, the author’s employer, and says its views do not necessarily reflect those of Oxford or DeepMind.
Researchers asked about job values, willingness to quit at different guaranteed-income levels, intended use of time and views about AI’s effects. The paper also 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. The survey’s cross-sectional design means it records responses at one point in time rather than tracking changes in behavior.
“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 Survey Evidence
The paper is a preprint, not a peer-reviewed study, and the central quit-or-stay result comes from a hypothetical question. It remains unclear whether respondents would make the same choices when facing an actual offer, job loss or long-term income support. The survey also does not measure whether particular social or psychological benefits of work can be provided in other ways.
Country comparisons need care. The paper reports that 28.8% of respondents in India would stay at the 120% offer, compared with 16.0% in the UK and 17.9% in both the US and Denmark. The author notes that the Indian online sample was younger, more urban and more educated than the country’s population as a whole. The paper’s analysis of political effects is also limited: it reports no significant difference between work-value groups in populist vote intention and cautions that its relationships are not causal.
Peer Review and Further Evidence
The paper may be revised as it receives scrutiny or is developed for publication; the source material does not give a date for peer review or a next release. Readers should treat its figures as findings from a single survey and its AI-related implications as the author’s interpretation, not a settled prediction.
Further evidence would be needed to test whether the reported preferences hold across more representative samples and whether they predict choices in real employment or income-support settings. Until then, the study offers a snapshot of what respondents say they value at work, rather than proof of what would happen if AI displaced jobs or governments introduced guaranteed income.
Key Questions
What did the survey find about leaving work for guaranteed income?
Most respondents said they would leave at an offer below their current pay. About one in five said they would not quit at 120% of salary, with health coverage, pension and paid leave retained. These were answers to a hypothetical question.
What do respondents say work provides beyond pay?
The paper groups work values into purpose and learning, colleagues and belonging, status and recognition, and pay and benefits. Among classifiable respondents, 73.7% placed a non-financial reason first in the paper’s figure.
Is the study peer-reviewed?
No. It was submitted to arXiv on October 29, 2026, and the source identifies it as a preprint. Its findings may change in later versions.
Does the paper show that basic income cannot replace work?
No. The author argues that income support could fail to replace some benefits people associate with work, but the survey did not test a real basic-income program or measure outcomes after job loss. The conclusion is an interpretation of stated preferences.
Who funded the survey?
The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, the author’s employer. It also says the views do not necessarily reflect those of Google DeepMind or the University of Oxford.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
