🔍 Read the full analysis: A Survey Puts 8,234 Workers’ Views On Work And AI In Focus 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 new, non-peer-reviewed survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, US, Denmark and India examines what people value in work and whether guaranteed income would persuade them to quit. The paper reports that about one in five respondents would stay in a job even if offered 120% of their salary, while most would leave at a lower offer; its findings are self-reported and do not establish how people would behave in practice.
A new survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, United States, Denmark and India finds that about one in five would not leave a job even for guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary, with health coverage, pension and paid leave retained. The results appear in a 39-page arXiv preprint by Julian Jacobs of the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, posted October 29; it has not been peer-reviewed.
The survey was fielded in June and July 2026 by polling organization More in Common, with national quotas for age, gender, education and region. The paper reports samples of 2,032 people in Denmark, 2,072 in India, 2,052 in the UK and 2,078 in the US. It says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, Jacobs’s employer, and that its views do not necessarily reflect those of Oxford or DeepMind.
In the survey’s hypothetical income test, participants were asked whether they would quit if offered guaranteed income starting at 60% of their salary and rising in 10-point steps to 120%, while keeping specified benefits. The paper says a slight majority would leave by an offer of 80% of salary, about three in four would leave at 100%, and roughly 20% would still decline the 120% offer. Among those who accepted an offer, the reported median quit point was 70% of salary and the average was 76%.
The author also grouped respondents’ stated job priorities into profiles. Among respondents the paper could classify, it reports 33% primarily motivated by the work itself, such as purpose, learning or contribution; 23% by colleagues and belonging; 17% by status and recognition; and 26% by pay and benefits. The paper’s figure says 73.7% placed a non-money reason first. Those are survey responses and classifications, not direct observations of workplace behavior.
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 Value Beyond Pay
The findings speak to a practical question raised by workplace automation: if AI reduces demand for some kinds of labor, would replacing wages with guaranteed income compensate people for losing work? The survey suggests that income is not the only stated reason people work. Respondents also named purpose, learning, social connection and recognition, which may matter to policy discussions about income support and to employers considering how work changes.
The paper reports that the share primarily motivated by the work itself was similar across household-income groups: 32% among lower-income respondents, 33% in the middle group and 34% among higher-income respondents. It also reports that around a third of craft and trade workers were in that profile. These results challenge the assumption that non-financial motivations are confined to higher-paid workers, though the survey design cannot show how those preferences translate into decisions.
There is also a reported difference in perceived exposure to AI: 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. This measures respondents’ expectations, not a forecast of actual job losses. The study offers a snapshot of concerns and stated values, rather than evidence that AI has already displaced the jobs discussed.
Products Worth Considering
Bose TV Speaker Compact Soundbar with Bluetooth and HDMI-ARC, Black
Apple AirPods Pro 3 Wireless Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation
DJI Mini 4K Fly More Combo
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Income Test Worked
The paper, titled What is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI, presents a hypothetical “auction” of guaranteed income. Participants considered successively higher offers, from 60% through 120% of current salary, with healthcare, pension and paid leave described as retained. The format lets the author compare stated quit decisions at different income levels; it does not track actual job exits or test a real basic-income program.
The reported share declining the top offer varied by country: 16.0% in the UK, 17.9% in the US, 17.9% in Denmark and 28.8% in India. The paper notes that its Indian online sample was younger, more urban and more educated than the country as a whole, a limitation when interpreting that comparison. Across income groups, it reports holdout shares of 21% for lower-income respondents, 18% for middle-income respondents and 22% for higher-income respondents.
The study uses cross-sectional regressions with controls including income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time work and country. Jacobs argues that a basic income “may indeed be necessary” in an AI-related labor shock, but “could ultimately fail to compensate workers” for what work provides beyond money. That is the author’s interpretation of survey answers, not a demonstrated outcome of a policy trial.
“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
Limits of the Survey Evidence
The preprint has not been peer-reviewed, and the author notes that figures could change in later versions. Its central quit measure is hypothetical: it does not show whether respondents would actually leave a job for the stated income, or how choices might change with household circumstances, available work or the terms of a real program.
The survey is cross-sectional, so it captures responses at one point in time and cannot establish that AI concerns cause changes in work preferences or political views. The paper reports that purpose- and community-driven respondents were more pessimistic when they expected AI to harm jobs in their industry, but says the analysis is not causal. Its tables also do not show statistically significant differences between the work-value groups in populist voting intention. The size and direction of any real employment effects remain unknown.
Funding and sample composition also matter when reading the results. The author discloses Google DeepMind support for the survey, and the online sample in India differs from that country’s wider population on age, urban residence and education. The source material does not provide enough detail to independently assess every survey item, classification choice or possible nonresponse effect.
Peer Review and Later Versions
The paper is currently an arXiv preprint, not a peer-reviewed journal article. Any later version or formal review may revise its methods, estimates or interpretation; the source material does not identify a review date or publication schedule. Readers should treat the reported numbers as findings from this version of the paper.
Further research could test whether stated preferences predict real job decisions, examine how responses change under actual income-support arrangements and compare survey samples more closely with national populations. For now, the study documents how respondents in four countries described work, income and AI risk; it does not determine how AI will affect employment or whether guaranteed income can replace the non-financial benefits respondents associate with work.
Key Questions
What did the survey find about leaving work for guaranteed income?
The paper reports that a slight majority would leave by an offer equal to 80% of salary, around three in four would leave at 100%, and about one in five would still decline an offer of 120%, with specified benefits retained. These are hypothetical responses.
Who took part in the survey?
The survey covered 8,234 working-age adults: 2,032 in Denmark, 2,072 in India, 2,052 in the UK and 2,078 in the United States. More in Common fielded it in June and July 2026 using national quotas.
Has the paper been peer-reviewed?
No. The 39-page paper was posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026 and is described as a preprint. Its findings may change in later versions or after review.
Does the study prove AI will replace 40% of white-collar jobs?
No. The paper says 40% of white-collar respondents thought it at least somewhat likely that AI would replace their own job within ten years. That is a measure of perceived risk, not a prediction that 40% of jobs will disappear.
Who funded the survey?
The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, where author Julian Jacobs works. It also says the views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Google DeepMind or the University of Oxford.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
