🔍 Read the full analysis: The Meaning Of Work, Through The Eyes Of 8,234 Workers Facing AI 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 based on a survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, US, Denmark and India finds that many respondents value purpose, colleagues or status alongside pay. About one in five said they would not quit even for guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary, though the study measures stated preferences, not actual behavior, and has not been peer-reviewed.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 finding comes from an unreviewed preprint by Julian Jacobs of the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, which examines what workers value beyond pay as artificial intelligence raises questions about the future of jobs.
The paper, What is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI, was posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026. Jacobs used an online survey conducted by More in Common in June and July, with roughly 2,000 respondents in each of the four countries. The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, Jacobs’s employer, and states that its views do not necessarily reflect the organization’s or Oxford’s.
In the survey’s guaranteed-income exercise, respondents were asked whether they would voluntarily quit if they received a guaranteed income, starting at 60% of their current salary and rising in steps to 120%, while retaining specified benefits. A slight majority said they would leave by the offer of 80% of salary; about three-quarters said they would leave at 100%. Among those who accepted an offer, the median point at which they said they would quit was 70% of salary.
The researchers also grouped respondents by their leading work values. Among those the paper could classify, 33% prioritized the work itself, such as purpose, learning or contribution; 23% prioritized colleagues and belonging; 17% status and recognition; and 26% pay and benefits. The paper’s figure says 73.7% placed a non-monetary reason first. These are survey responses about stated priorities and hypothetical choices, not records of people leaving jobs.
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 Alone May Not Replace Work
The findings bear on debate about how workers might fare if AI reduces demand for some kinds of labor. The paper argues that income support could address lost earnings without replacing other things respondents associate with jobs, including purpose, social ties and recognition. Jacobs writes that a basic income “may indeed be necessary” during an AI-related labor shock, but could fail to compensate workers for what work provides beyond money.
That is an interpretation of survey answers, not an observed result of an AI disruption. Still, it points to a policy and workplace question: if employment changes, income replacement may not address every concern workers express. The survey found that the share primarily motivated by the work itself was similar across household income groups—32% among lower-income, 33% among middle-income and 34% among higher-income respondents—and about a third among craft and trade workers. The pattern suggests these stated motivations are not limited to affluent respondents.
The results also complicate a simple claim that most people would refuse to work if given enough money. Most respondents said they would leave under the hypothetical, often at less than their salary; a substantial minority said they would remain even at the highest offer tested. Neither answer establishes how people would behave amid real job loss, changing family needs or different benefit arrangements.
Popular right now
Ninja Foodi 10-Qt DualZone Smart XL Air Fryer, 6-in-1, DZ550
Samsung 85-Inch QN70H Neo QLED 4K Smart TV (2026)
De'Longhi Rivelia Automatic Espresso Machine with Milk Frother
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Survey Tested Work Values
The preprint uses a nine-item set of questions about what matters in a job, including pay, non-wage benefits, purpose, learning, contribution to society, belonging, meeting people and social status. It combines these answers into four “Work Values Profiles,” then compares them with responses to the income-offer exercise, questions about how respondents would spend their time, and views about AI’s effects.
The paper’s analysis uses cross-sectional regression models with controls including income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time work and country. It reports that, after controls, people primarily motivated by purpose sought about 1.9 to 5.8 percentage points more guaranteed income than pay-driven respondents before saying they would quit, depending on the method used. That is a difference in stated thresholds, not evidence that purpose-driven workers will remain employed through an AI-driven labor shock.
The study also asked about perceived job risk. About 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 describe respondents’ expectations, not forecasts of actual job losses.
“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 Survey Cannot Establish
The paper is a 39-page version-one preprint and has not been peer-reviewed. Its results could change in later versions. The online survey used national quotas for age, gender, education and region, but the paper notes a particular limitation in India: the sample was younger, more urban and substantially more educated than the country’s population as a whole. Cross-country comparisons should be read with that qualification.
The quit question is hypothetical, and the study does not observe respondents making real employment decisions. The results therefore cannot show how people would respond to an actual income guarantee, whether a basic-income program would have the effects Jacobs discusses, or how AI will change employment. The paper also reports no statistically significant difference between work-value groups in populist vote intention, and says its analysis does not establish causation.
Peer Review and Further Evidence
The next formal step is for the preprint to undergo any further revision or review; the source material does not identify a journal submission or review schedule. Readers should check for later versions before treating the findings as settled, since the paper is currently marked version one.
Stronger evidence about AI’s employment effects would require tracking actual job changes over time, rather than relying only on expectations and hypothetical choices. Further research could also test whether the same work-value patterns appear in more representative samples and whether income support or alternative forms of social participation affect workers’ reported well-being. For now, the study offers a snapshot of stated priorities, not a forecast of what workers will do as AI adoption develops.
Key Questions
What is the new study about?
It is an arXiv preprint analyzing survey responses from 8,234 working-age adults in four countries about job values, hypothetical guaranteed income, AI-related job concerns and political attitudes.
How many respondents said they would stay at 120% of salary?
About one in five said they would not quit at a guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary, with health coverage, pension and paid leave retained. The answer came from a hypothetical survey exercise, not observed job decisions.
What did respondents value besides pay?
Among respondents the paper could classify, 33% primarily valued the work itself, 23% colleagues and belonging, and 17% status and recognition. The paper’s figure reports that 73.7% placed a non-monetary reason first.
Does the study prove AI will eliminate jobs?
No. It reports workers’ expectations: 40% of white-collar respondents considered AI replacement of their job within ten years at least somewhat likely, versus 29% of manual and service workers. Those views are not a forecast of actual job losses.
Has the paper been peer-reviewed?
No. It was posted as a version-one preprint on arXiv on October 29, 2026, and has not been peer-reviewed. The paper says Google DeepMind supported the survey and that its views do not necessarily reflect the organization’s or Oxford’s.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
