🔍 Read the full analysis: The Purpose Of Work In An AI Era: Insights From 8,234 Workers on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on tech for your team
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
A preprint based on a 2026 survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, US, Denmark and India finds that most respondents would leave work for guaranteed income below their current salary, but about one in five would stay even at 120% of pay. The author argues that work can provide meaning and community that income alone may not replace; the findings are self-reported, correlational and not peer-reviewed.
A preprint posted October 29 reports that most of 8,234 working-age adults surveyed across four countries would leave their jobs for guaranteed income below their current salary, while about one in five would stay even at 120% of pay. The study, by Julian Jacobs of the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, examines whether income could replace the purpose, social ties and recognition people may get from work as artificial intelligence reshapes jobs.
The online survey covered adults in the United Kingdom, United States, Denmark and India, with roughly 2,000 respondents in each country. More in Common fielded it in June and July 2026, using national quotas for age, gender, education and region. The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, Jacobs’s employer. It is a 39-page arXiv preprint, not a peer-reviewed study, and its results may change in later versions.
Respondents considered an escalating offer of guaranteed income, starting at 60% of their current salary and increasing in ten-point steps to 120%, while healthcare, pension and paid leave remained in place. According to the paper, a slight majority would quit by an offer equal to 80% of salary; about three-quarters would do so at 100%. Among those who accepted an offer, the median point at which they would quit was 70% of salary. The responses describe a hypothetical choice, not observed decisions about leaving work.
The study also grouped respondents by the job factors they rated most highly. Among those the paper could classify, 33% were primarily oriented toward the work itself, such as purpose, learning or contribution; 23% toward colleagues and belonging; 17% toward status and recognition; and 26% toward pay and benefits. The paper reports that 73.7% placed a non-monetary reason first. The author says the share primarily driven by the work itself was similar across income groups, at 32% among low-income, 33% among middle-income and 34% among high-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 Income May Not Replace
The findings bear on debates about how societies and employers might respond if AI reduces demand for some kinds of labor. A guaranteed income could help replace lost wages, but the paper’s results suggest that some workers value work for reasons beyond pay. That distinction matters to policy discussions about income support and to employers considering how roles, teams and training might change.
Jacobs argues that a basic income may be necessary during an AI-related labor shock yet could fail to compensate people for everything work provides. That is an interpretation of survey answers, not evidence that income support would fail in practice. The analysis also finds modest differences in the income respondents said they would require to quit: after statistical controls, purpose-oriented respondents asked for about 1.9 to 5.8 percentage points more guaranteed income than pay-oriented respondents, depending on the model. Those estimates are associations, not proof that work values cause different choices.
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 capture respondents’ expectations, not verified forecasts of job losses. They help explain why the study’s question reaches beyond personal preferences: perceptions of automation can shape how workers think about security, identity and the future of their occupation.
Products Worth Considering
Samsung 27-Inch Odyssey QD-OLED G8 4K 240Hz Gaming Monitor
LG 34GX90SA-W 34-inch Ultragear WQHD OLED Curved Gaming Monitor
LG UltraGear 27-Inch QHD OLED Gaming Monitor, 240Hz, 0.03ms, G-SYNC Compatible, FreeSync Premium Pro, HDMI 2.1
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Survey Tested Work Values
The paper, titled What is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI, uses a nine-item set of questions about what matters in a job, an escalating guaranteed-income scenario, and questions about AI and politics. It then compares responses across four work-values profiles. The study’s models adjust for factors including income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time work and country.
The quit scenario is a thought experiment: respondents were asked whether they would voluntarily stop working at successive income levels while retaining specified benefits. It does not show how people would respond to an actual offer, how they would spend their time after leaving, or whether the promised income and benefits would remain secure. The author also reports that people who prioritize purpose or community become more pessimistic when they expect AI to hurt employment in their industry.
The source article notes limits in the paper’s political analysis. Its tables do not show statistically significant differences between work-value groups in populist vote intention, and the paper describes its analysis as “purely relational, not causal.” The survey is also an online sample; in India, the author says respondents were younger, more urban and more educated than the population as a whole.
““may indeed be necessary””
— Julian Jacobs, paper author
Limits of the Survey Evidence
The paper has not been peer-reviewed, and the reported results could change in a later version. Its central findings rely on self-reported answers to hypothetical questions, so they cannot establish how respondents would act if offered guaranteed income in real life. The survey also does not test whether basic income would preserve workers’ sense of purpose, belonging or status.
It remains unclear how well the results generalize beyond the four countries or to workers who are less likely to take part in online polling. The paper’s India sample, in particular, is described as younger, more urban and more educated than the country’s population overall. The source material also flags the funding relationship with Google DeepMind; readers can assess the paper with that disclosure in view.
The analysis does not establish that AI will replace the jobs respondents fear losing, nor does it show that purpose-driven workers will respond to automation in a particular political way. The paper reports no significant differences among work-value groups in populist vote intention and cautions that its analysis is not causal.
Peer Review and Further Evidence
The immediate next step is further scrutiny of the preprint’s methods and findings. Because the paper is a first version, readers should check for revisions, peer review or published follow-up research before treating its estimates as settled. The author’s reported survey provides a snapshot of stated preferences in mid-2026, not a forecast of what workers will do as AI adoption changes.
Further evidence would be needed to compare these hypothetical choices with actual job exits, income-support programs and workplace changes. Researchers could also test whether the patterns hold in broader or more representative samples and whether workers’ priorities shift over time. For now, the paper supports a limited conclusion: many respondents said they would leave work for less than their current salary, while a sizable minority said even a higher guaranteed income would not persuade them.
Key Questions
What did the survey find about quitting for guaranteed income?
The paper reports that a slight majority would quit by an offer equal to 80% of current salary, and about three-quarters would do so at 100%. About one in five said they would still stay at 120%.
Who took part in the study?
The online survey included 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, US, Denmark and India. More in Common fielded it in June and July 2026.
Is the study peer-reviewed?
No. The paper was posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026, as a preprint. Its findings have not been peer-reviewed and may change.
Does the paper prove that basic income cannot replace work?
No. The author argues that income may not replace the purpose, community or recognition some people get from work. The survey records hypothetical responses and does not test the real-world effects of a basic-income program.
What does the study say about AI and job loss?
It 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. These are respondents’ expectations, not confirmed job-loss projections.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
