🔍 Read the full analysis: 8,234 Workers On The Possible Losses That Come With AI Taking Jobs 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 analyzing an online 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 for guaranteed income worth 120% of their salary. The paper links work to purpose, colleagues and status as well as pay, but its findings rely on stated answers, are not peer-reviewed and do not establish how people would act during actual job losses.
A preprint posted October 29 reports that about one in five of 8,234 surveyed workers would not quit even if offered guaranteed income equal to 120% of their current salary, with health coverage, pension and paid leave maintained. The study, by Julian Jacobs of the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, examines whether income could replace what people get from work as AI raises concerns about jobs; it is based on respondents’ stated preferences, not observed behavior.
The online survey covered working-age adults in the UK, US, Denmark and India, with roughly 2,000 respondents from each country. More in Common fielded it in June and July 2026 using national quotas for age, gender, education and region. The paper describes the research as a cross-sectional analysis and says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, Jacobs’s employer. It has not been peer-reviewed, and later versions may change its results.
In the survey’s hypothetical offer, respondents were asked whether they would voluntarily quit at successive guaranteed-income levels, from 60% to 120% of their current salary. A slight majority would leave by an offer of 80%; about three in four would leave at 100%. At 120%, roughly 20% said they would still stay. Among those who accepted an offer, the median quit point was 70% of salary, the paper reports.
The researchers also grouped respondents by their leading work values. Among those the paper could classify, 33% were primarily driven 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% placed a nonfinancial reason first. Its analysis found only modest differences in the guaranteed income people said they would need to quit: purpose-driven respondents asked for about 1.9 to 5.8 percentage points more than pay-driven respondents, depending on the model.
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 Income May Not Replace Work
The findings point to a challenge for policymakers and employers considering how to respond if AI reduces demand for some kinds of labor. Income support could address lost earnings, but it may not meet needs tied to daily structure, social connection, recognition or a sense of contribution. Jacobs argues that a basic income may be necessary in an AI-related labor shock while still failing to compensate fully for what work provides beyond money.
That conclusion should be read as an interpretation of survey responses, not evidence that a particular income policy would fail. The gap between what people say they would do in a hypothetical situation and what they do after an actual job loss is unknown. Still, the reported pattern suggests that discussions of automation and worker support may need to account for more than wages alone, including how displaced people could retain opportunities for community, purpose and skill development.
The paper also reports that 40% of white-collar respondents considered AI at least somewhat likely to replace their job within ten years, compared with 29% of manual and service workers. These are perceptions, not forecasts of actual job losses. They indicate concern among respondents but cannot establish how many jobs AI will eliminate or when.
Products Worth Considering
Samsung 27-Inch Odyssey QD-OLED G8 4K 240Hz Gaming Monitor
Apple Watch SE 3 GPS 44mm Smartwatch
Bose TV Speaker Compact Soundbar with Bluetooth and HDMI-ARC, Black
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, was submitted to arXiv in general economics on October 29, 2026. It is a 39-page, single-author preprint. The study used a nine-item set of questions about what matters in a job, including pay, benefits, purpose, learning, social contribution, belonging, meeting people and status. It then classified respondents into four work-value profiles and compared answers across income, occupation and other characteristics.
Its central exercise was an auction-style hypothetical: would respondents quit if they could keep receiving a guaranteed share of their salary, along with benefits? The paper’s models adjust for factors including income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time work and country. The author says the survey results show associations, not causal effects. The findings therefore do not establish that work values cause someone to remain employed or that AI exposure changes those values.
The paper also reports differences across countries: the share declining to quit at 120% was 16% in the UK, 17.9% in the US and Denmark, and 28.8% in India. The paper cautions that its Indian online sample was younger, more urban and more educated than the country overall. Those country figures are not directly representative of every worker in each population.
“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, author of the preprint
Limits of the Survey Evidence
The survey asks people to imagine quitting in exchange for guaranteed income; it does not track choices made after real job displacement. Whether stated preferences predict actual behavior remains unclear, as does how people would respond to different benefit designs, job prospects or family circumstances.
The research is a non-peer-reviewed preprint, and its author says later versions could change the figures. The online samples and country quotas also do not remove all limits on representativeness, particularly in India. The findings cannot show how many jobs AI will replace, whether the reported concerns will translate into job losses, or whether income support would offset those losses.
The paper’s political analysis is less conclusive than its work-value findings. Although it reports that purpose- and community-driven respondents became more pessimistic when they expected AI to hurt jobs in their industry, its tables do not show significant differences between the groups in populist voting intention. No causal political effect is established.
Peer Review and Policy Evidence
The immediate next step is for the paper to receive scrutiny from researchers and potentially be revised. Because it is an arXiv preprint, its results have not yet passed peer review. Any later version may refine the survey analysis or its conclusions.
For policy decisions, further evidence would be needed from research that follows workers over time and examines real job changes, income support and nonfinancial effects. The current study raises questions about what workers value, but it does not test an actual basic-income program or measure the effects of AI-driven displacement. Those outcomes remain open questions.
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 preserved. About three in four said they would leave at 100% of salary.
Who took part in the survey?
The online survey included 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, US, Denmark and India. More in Common conducted it in June and July 2026 using national quotas for age, gender, education and region.
Does the paper show that AI will replace these workers’ jobs?
No. It reports respondents’ views about the likelihood of replacement, including 40% of white-collar respondents who considered it at least somewhat likely within ten years. Those answers are perceptions, not job-loss forecasts.
Has the study been peer-reviewed?
No. The paper was posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026, as a preprint that has not been peer-reviewed. Its results may change in later versions.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
