🔍 Read the full analysis: What We Get From Work—and What AI Might Take Away on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get the latest gadgets 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 Oxford and Google DeepMind researcher Julian Jacobs reports that most surveyed workers would leave their jobs for guaranteed income below their current salary, but about one in five would stay even at 120% of pay. The survey also finds that purpose, colleagues and recognition often matter more than pay, though its hypothetical answers do not show how people would behave in practice.
A new unreviewed arXiv 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 said they would stay even if offered 120% of their pay. The study, by Julian Jacobs of the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, examines whether money could replace the purpose, social ties and recognition people get from work as AI changes employment.
The paper, “What is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI,” was posted to arXiv on 29 October 2026. Its online survey was fielded in June and July by polling organization More in Common, with respondents in the United States, United Kingdom, Denmark and India. The survey asked people to imagine receiving guaranteed income while keeping healthcare, pension and paid leave, then say whether they would quit at different payment levels.
Across the four-country sample, a slight majority would quit at 80% of their current salary, and about three-quarters would do so at 100%. At 120%, roughly 20% still said they would not leave. The share was similar across household-income groups, ranging from 18% among middle-income respondents to 22% among higher-income respondents. These are answers to a hypothetical scenario, not observations of workers making actual job decisions.
The paper also groups respondents by their leading job values. Among those it could classify, 33% prioritized the work itself, including purpose and learning; 23% prioritized colleagues and belonging; 17% status and recognition; and 26% pay and benefits. The paper says 73.7% placed a non-monetary reason first. Its statistical models estimate that purpose-driven respondents would require about 1.9 to 5.8 percentage points more guaranteed income than pay-driven respondents before quitting, depending on the model used.
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 Pay May Not Replace Work
The findings bear on debates about how governments and employers should respond if AI reduces demand for some kinds of labor. Income support could address lost earnings, but the paper argues it may not replace other things people associate with jobs, such as contribution, learning, social contact and recognition. That argument is an interpretation of survey responses, not proof that a basic income would fail or that workers would lose those benefits in an AI-driven labor market.
The results also complicate a simple picture of work as either a source of fulfillment or a financial necessity. Most respondents in the hypothetical exercise would leave for a sufficiently secure payment, including some below their current salary. At the same time, a substantial minority said they would remain even at a higher income. For policymakers, the distinction matters: replacing wages may not address every concern people have about work, while the survey does not establish what forms of replacement would work.
The paper 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. Those figures measure perceived risk, not forecasts of actual job losses.
Products Worth Considering
LG 34GX90SA-W 34-inch Ultragear WQHD OLED Curved Gaming Monitor
Samsung 27-inch Odyssey OLED G6 QD-OLED QHD Gaming Monitor
Samsung Galaxy Tab S10 FE 128GB Wi-Fi Android Tablet, Blue
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Survey Tested Work Values
Jacobs’s single-author paper is a 39-page preprint in general economics, not a peer-reviewed study. The survey included 2,032 respondents in Denmark, 2,072 in India, 2,052 in the UK and 2,078 in the US. It used national quotas for age, gender, education and region. The author says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, his employer, and that the views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the company or Oxford.
To categorize job values, respondents rated factors including pay, benefits, purpose, learning, social contribution, belonging, meeting people and status. The guaranteed-income question then increased the offer in 10-percentage-point steps, from 60% through 120% of current salary. The researchers used cross-sectional regression models with controls including income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time status and country.
The survey appeared on Hacker News on 31 October, according to the source report. Its results should be read as a snapshot of stated preferences in four countries. They do not establish how AI will affect jobs, whether respondents would accept a real offer, or how preferences might change after job loss.
“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, the paper’s author
Limits of the Preprint’s Evidence
The study has not been peer reviewed, and its results may change in later versions. Its central job-exit measure is hypothetical: saying one would quit at a given income level is not the same as leaving a job when faced with an actual offer, financial obligations or uncertainty about future conditions.
The survey also does not show that AI will replace the jobs respondents fear losing. The paper reports associations between work values and views of AI, but says its analysis is not causal. Its political findings are especially limited: although purpose- and community-oriented respondents became more pessimistic when they expected AI to hurt jobs in their industry, the paper’s tables found no statistically significant differences among the groups in populist vote intention.
Country comparisons also require care. The paper reports a 28.8% holdout rate in India, higher than the rates in the other three countries, but notes that its Indian online sample was younger, more urban and more educated than the country’s population as a whole. The findings should not be treated as nationally representative without that qualification.
What Further Evidence Is Needed
The immediate next step is further scrutiny of the arXiv preprint, including any revisions and assessment by other researchers. The source material does not identify a peer-review decision, a publication date in a journal or a planned follow-up survey.
To test the paper’s broader implications, future research would need to track people over time and compare stated preferences with actual employment choices, income support and changes in job availability. Evidence on how AI affects particular occupations would also be needed before survey responses about perceived risk could be connected to real displacement. For now, the study offers a cross-country snapshot of what respondents say work provides—and a reason not to assume that replacing wages alone would answer every concern.
Key Questions
What did the survey find about leaving work?
Most respondents said they would quit under the hypothetical guaranteed-income offer: a slight majority at 80% of current salary and about three-quarters at 100%. About one in five said they would stay even at 120%.
What do workers say they value besides pay?
Among respondents the study could classify, 33% prioritized the work itself, 23% colleagues and belonging, and 17% status and recognition. The paper reports that 73.7% put a non-monetary reason first.
Does the paper prove basic income cannot replace work?
No. The author argues that income support may not replace all the non-financial benefits people associate with jobs, but the evidence comes from a hypothetical survey and does not test an actual basic-income program.
Has the study been peer reviewed?
No. It was posted to arXiv on 29 October 2026 as a preprint. Its findings may change and have not been established through peer review.
What does the study say about AI replacing jobs?
It measures respondents’ expectations, not actual job losses. The paper reports that 40% of white-collar respondents considered replacement at least somewhat likely within ten years, compared with 29% of manual and service workers.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
