🔍 Read the full analysis: What Could Disappear If AI Takes The Job? 8,234 Workers Respond on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on monitors, keyboards and dev gear
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
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 not leave work even for guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary, with benefits retained. The findings suggest that some workers value purpose, colleagues or recognition alongside pay, but the survey measures stated preferences—not how people would actually behave—and its claims have not been peer-reviewed.
A survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the United Kingdom, 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 preserved. The result appears in an unreviewed arXiv preprint by Julian Jacobs of the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, which examines what workers might lose beyond pay as artificial intelligence changes employment.
The study, titled What is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI, was posted on October 29, 2026. Its online survey was conducted in June and July by polling organization More in Common, with national quotas for age, gender, education and region. The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, Jacobs’s employer, and says its views do not necessarily reflect those of Oxford or DeepMind.
In the survey’s hypothetical offer, participants were asked whether they would voluntarily quit if guaranteed an income at successive levels from 60% to 120% of current salary, while retaining specified benefits. A slight majority would leave by an offer of 80% of salary; around three-quarters would do so at 100%. Among those accepting an offer, the median point at which they said they would quit was 70% of salary. These are stated answers to a scenario, not observed decisions or evidence that employers or governments are making such offers.
The researchers also grouped respondents by their leading work values. Among those the paper could classify, 33% were mainly motivated 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. The paper reports that 73.7% put a non-financial reason first. It says the share motivated primarily by the work itself was similar across income groups—32% among lower-income respondents, 33% in the middle group and 34% 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
What Workers May Lose Beyond Pay
The findings speak to a question raised by the prospect of AI-related job changes: whether replacing lost wages with income support would address everything people get from work. The author argues that it may not. For some respondents, purpose, learning, social ties and recognition rank ahead of pay as their main work value, suggesting that income replacement alone may leave other needs unmet.
That interpretation should not be mistaken for a tested forecast of how AI will affect workers. The survey did not track people losing jobs or test a real income-support program. It asked people to imagine quitting under guaranteed conditions. The findings therefore offer evidence about stated preferences, not proof that a basic income would fail, or that particular workers would refuse to leave a job in practice.
The paper also reports a difference in perceived exposure: 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 respondents’ expectations, not a measured prediction of job losses. The results could matter to employers and policymakers considering how to respond to workplace automation, but they do not establish which interventions would work.
Popular right now
Ninja Foodi 10-Qt DualZone Smart XL Air Fryer, 6-in-1, DZ550
Shark PowerDetect Corded Stick Vacuum, Self-Cleaning (Eggplant, HZ4002)
Ninja Foodi DualZone 10-Qt Air Fryer, 6-in-1, Black (DZ302)
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Survey Tested Work’s Value
The study used an online sample of 2,032 people in Denmark, 2,072 in India, 2,052 in the UK and 2,078 in the US. It asked participants to rate aspects of work, including pay, benefits, purpose, learning, contribution to society, belonging, social contact and status. Researchers used those answers to assign work-value profiles, then compared responses to the hypothetical quitting offer and questions about AI and politics.
The paper is a 39-page, single-author preprint submitted to arXiv in General Economics. It has not been peer-reviewed, and the source material notes that later versions may change. Its statistical analysis uses cross-sectional survey responses and controls for factors including income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time work and country. The author describes the analysis as relational rather than causal.
The paper’s conclusions are narrower than the headline question might suggest. It does not identify which jobs AI will take, when employment changes will happen, or how many people will lose work. It examines workers’ stated priorities and views at one point in time, offering a snapshot of how respondents think about work and possible AI disruption.
“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, paper author
What the Responses Cannot Establish
It is not known whether respondents would make the same choices when faced with an actual offer, job loss or policy change. The income question was hypothetical, and guaranteed pay with benefits may not capture the uncertainty, personal circumstances or practical constraints people face when deciding whether to leave work.
The results also depend on an online survey and the study’s classifications of work values. The source material flags the Indian sample as younger, more urban and more educated than the country’s population overall, a limitation when interpreting its comparatively high 120% holdout share. The preprint has not been peer-reviewed, and its estimates may change. Its reported political links are also limited: the paper’s tables do not show significant differences in populist vote intention between the work-value groups.
Peer Review and Further Evidence
The immediate next step is for the preprint to receive scrutiny from other researchers; no peer-review outcome or revised version is established in the source material. Later versions could revise the analysis or clarify its limits. Readers should treat the reported percentages as findings from this particular survey rather than as forecasts for all workers.
To assess how work values affect responses to automation, further evidence would need to follow people over time or examine real employment changes and income-support programs. For now, the study documents what respondents said about work and a hypothetical offer; it does not show what workers will do as AI changes particular jobs.
Key Questions
What did the survey find about quitting for guaranteed income?
About one in five respondents said they would not quit even for guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary, with health coverage, pension and paid leave retained. The result comes from a hypothetical survey question.
Who took part in the survey?
The study surveyed 8,234 working-age adults in Denmark, India, the UK and the US in June and July 2026. The online sample used national quotas for age, gender, education and region; the paper notes limitations in the Indian sample.
Does the study show that AI will replace these workers’ jobs?
No. It reports respondents’ views about the likelihood of AI replacing their jobs and their answers to a hypothetical quitting offer. It does not establish future job losses or identify which occupations will be replaced.
Has the paper been peer-reviewed?
No. It was posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026 as a preprint and had not been peer-reviewed according to the supplied source material. Its results could change in a later version.
Who funded the survey?
The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, the author’s employer. It also says the views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of DeepMind or the University of Oxford.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
