🔍 Read the full analysis: What Does AI Put At Risk Besides Employment? Workers Weigh In on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get smart everyday buys 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 survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, US, Denmark and India found that many respondents placed purpose, community or status ahead of pay when describing what matters in work. The study’s author argues that income support may not replace all that work provides, but the survey is a preprint, measures stated preferences rather than behavior, and does not establish AI’s effects on jobs or politics.
A survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, United States, Denmark and India found that many respondents value purpose, community and recognition at work alongside or ahead of pay, according to a new, unreviewed preprint posted October 29. The findings bear on debates about how to support workers if artificial intelligence changes employment, but they do not show that AI has caused job losses or that respondents would act as they said in the survey.
In the paper, Julian Jacobs of the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind groups respondents into four work-value profiles. Among those the study could classify, 33% were primarily motivated by the work itself, including purpose, learning and contribution; 23% by colleagues and belonging; 17% by status and recognition; and 26% by pay and benefits. The paper reports that 73.7% put a non-monetary reason first. These figures describe survey responses, not a measure of how workers behave on the job.
The survey also asked whether respondents would voluntarily leave work for guaranteed income, while keeping health coverage, pension and paid leave. Offers rose in steps from 60% to 120% of current salary. A slight majority said they would leave at 80% of salary, and roughly three-quarters at 100%. About one in five said they would not leave even at 120%, a share that the paper reports as similar across income groups.
Among respondents who accepted an offer, the median point at which they said they would quit was 70% of salary, while the average was 76%. Those results suggest that many participants were willing to trade employment for a guaranteed income in the hypothetical scenario. They do not establish what workers would choose under real conditions, where factors such as job availability, household finances and access to benefits may differ.
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 Pay Cannot Measure
The findings add workers’ own stated priorities to a policy discussion often framed around lost wages and jobs. If work also supplies social connection, identity, learning or a sense of contribution, replacing earnings alone may not address every concern people associate with reduced employment. That is the central interpretation Jacobs draws from the survey, rather than a direct test of an income policy.
The paper says a basic income may be necessary during an AI-related labor shock, while arguing that cash could fail to compensate for non-financial parts of work. The survey cannot determine whether that would happen in practice, or whether other forms of support—such as community programs, training or new kinds of work—would make a difference.
The potential scale of the effect should also be kept in proportion. After statistical controls, purpose-driven respondents required about 1.9 to 5.8 percentage points more guaranteed income than pay-driven respondents before saying they would quit, depending on the model. The author describes the differences as real but small. The study is not an estimate of how much income any particular worker would need in a real labor-market disruption.
Popular right now
Apple AirPods Pro 3 Wireless Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation
Shark Rotator Lift-Away Vacuum with DuoClean PowerFins (LA555) – Dark Grey
De'Longhi Magnifica Evo Fully Automatic Espresso Machine with Manual Milk Frother, Silver
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Survey Was Run
The paper, titled What is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI, is a 39-page, single-author preprint submitted to arXiv in General Economics on October 29, 2026. It had not been peer-reviewed at the time described in the source material, and its results could change in later versions.
More in Common conducted the online survey in June and July 2026. It included 2,032 respondents in Denmark, 2,072 in India, 2,052 in the UK and 2,078 in the US, with national quotas for age, gender, education and region. The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, Jacobs’s employer, and says its views do not necessarily reflect those of Oxford or DeepMind. The funding disclosure is relevant when readers assess the research; it does not by itself establish that the results are biased.
Questions covered job values, the hypothetical guaranteed-income offer, how respondents might spend time outside work, perceived AI threats and political views. The analysis uses cross-sectional regressions with controls including income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time work and country. Because the data capture responses at one point in time, the analysis can identify associations but cannot establish cause and effect.
“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 AI Findings
The survey measures what respondents said they would do in a hypothetical scenario. It does not track actual departures from jobs, test an implemented income guarantee or show how workers would respond if AI changed their role. The paper’s findings therefore cannot confirm that AI will displace the respondents’ jobs or that a basic income would, or would not, replace what they value in work.
The source 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. Those are perceptions, not forecasts of actual displacement. The paper also finds that purpose- and community-oriented workers were more pessimistic when they expected AI to harm employment in their industry, but it reports no significant difference between these groups in populist vote intention.
Generalization is limited by the online survey design and country differences. The paper notes that India’s sample was younger, more urban and more educated than the country’s population overall. The preprint status means independent peer review has not yet assessed the methods or conclusions, and later versions may revise the analysis.
Peer Review and Further Evidence
The immediate next step is scrutiny of the preprint’s methods, sample and interpretation by other researchers. The paper was posted as version one on arXiv, so readers should check for later versions or peer-reviewed publication before treating its estimates as settled.
Stronger evidence about real-world effects would require research beyond stated preferences—for example, tracking workers as jobs change, or evaluating actual income-support programs and other forms of assistance. Until then, the study offers a snapshot of how respondents describe work and a hypothetical choice, not a forecast of the labor market under AI.
Key Questions
What did the survey find about workers’ reasons for working?
Among respondents the paper could classify, 33% were mainly motivated by the work itself, 23% by colleagues and belonging, 17% by status and recognition, and 26% by pay and benefits. These are categories based on survey answers.
Would most respondents leave their jobs for guaranteed income?
In the hypothetical question, a slight majority said they would leave for 80% of their current salary, and around three-quarters said they would leave at 100%. About one in five said they would stay even at 120%. The answers do not show what people would do in a real offer.
Does the study show that AI is replacing jobs?
No. It reports respondents’ expectations about AI and employment, including the share who consider replacement likely within ten years. It does not measure actual AI-related job losses or predict which jobs will be eliminated.
Has the paper been peer-reviewed?
No. The source describes it as a version-one preprint posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026. Its findings may change, and the paper has not yet passed peer review.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
