🔍 Read the full analysis: 8,234 Workers On What Work Gives Us Beyond A Paycheck on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get hardware and tech essentials 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 preprint analyzing a survey of 8,234 working-age adults in four countries finds that many respondents value purpose, belonging and recognition as well as pay. About one in five said they would not leave their job even for guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary, though the survey measures stated preferences, not actual behavior.
A new survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, the United States, Denmark and India found that about one in five respondents would not quit even if offered guaranteed income equal to 120% of their current salary, with health coverage, pension and paid leave preserved. The results appear in a preprint posted October 29 by Julian Jacobs, an Oxford researcher affiliated with Google DeepMind, and suggest that some people value work for reasons beyond pay; the study records hypothetical answers, not observed decisions.
The paper, titled What is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI, draws on an online survey fielded in June and July 2026 by polling organization More in Common. Its respondents included 2,032 people in Denmark, 2,072 in India, 2,052 in the UK and 2,078 in the US. The study used national quotas for age, gender, education and region, and its author describes the work as a 39-page, single-author preprint. It has not been peer-reviewed.
In the survey’s hypothetical income test, respondents were asked whether they would voluntarily leave their jobs if guaranteed income rose from 60% of their current salary in steps of 10 percentage points, up to 120%. The package kept healthcare, pension and paid leave. A slight majority would leave at 80% of salary, around three in four at 100%, and about 20% still said they would stay at 120%. Among respondents who accepted an offer, the median threshold was 70% of salary and the average was 76%.
The paper groups respondents by the job factors they rated most highly. Among those it 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. A separate figure in the paper says 73.7% ranked a non-financial reason first. These categories describe survey responses, not fixed or exclusive motivations.
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 Jobs Provide Beyond Income
The findings speak to a policy question raised by the prospect of AI changing or displacing jobs: if people lose work, can income support replace what a job provides? Jacobs argues that a basic income “may indeed be necessary” in an AI-related labor shock, but “could ultimately fail to compensate workers” for non-financial benefits of employment. That is the author’s interpretation of stated preferences, not a tested result about what would happen after job losses.
The survey also indicates that these motivations are not limited to respondents with higher household incomes. The share whose leading motivation was the work itself was reported as 32% among low-income respondents, 33% in the middle-income group and 34% among high-income respondents. The paper reports a similar share, about one third, among craft and trade workers. If the pattern holds beyond this sample, employment programs and income policies may need to account for social connection, purpose and recognition as well as financial security.
The estimated differences in quit thresholds were small after statistical controls. Depending on the method, purpose-driven respondents asked for about 1.9 to 5.8 percentage points more guaranteed income to quit than respondents primarily motivated by pay. The paper translates that range to roughly $1,100 to $3,500 a year for a worker earning $60,000. Those estimates describe associations in the survey; they do not establish that motivation caused a particular response.
Products Worth Considering
Apple MacBook Pro 16-inch (2021) with M1 Max, 64 GB RAM, 2 TB SSD – Space Grey
Ledger Flex + Folio Crypto Hardware Wallet
Apple MacBook Pro 16.2-inch with M5 Pro Chip (18-Core CPU, 20-Core GPU), 48GB RAM, 1TB SSD, Nano-Texture Display, Space Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Survey Measured Work Values
The research combines a nine-item questionnaire about job values with the guaranteed-income exercise, questions about how respondents would spend their time if they stopped working, and questions about AI and politics. The value questions covered pay and benefits, purpose, learning, social contribution, belonging, meeting people and status. The analysis uses cross-sectional statistical models with controls including income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time work and country.
The paper also reports a gap in perceived AI risk: 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. The survey measures respondents’ expectations, not the likelihood that those jobs will actually be replaced.
The author says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind, his employer, and that the views in the paper do not necessarily reflect those of Oxford or DeepMind. The source account says it found no analysis favoring a company; the funding relationship remains relevant information for readers evaluating the research.
““may indeed be necessary””
— Julian Jacobs, author of the preprint
Limits of Hypothetical Responses
The quit question asks what respondents say they would do under a hypothetical guarantee. It does not show whether they would leave a real job, or how they might respond to changes in health coverage, pension arrangements, household needs or workplace conditions. The reported figures should be read as stated preferences rather than observed behavior.
The paper is a version-one preprint and has not undergone peer review; its numbers may change in later versions. The author’s models identify relationships but cannot establish that work motivation causes a particular AI concern or political view. Although purpose- and community-driven respondents were more pessimistic when they expected AI to harm jobs in their industries, the paper’s tables show no statistically significant difference among the groups in populist vote intention.
Country comparisons also need caution. The reported share unwilling to quit at 120% ranged from 16.0% in the UK to 28.8% in India, but the source notes that the Indian online sample was younger, more urban and more educated than the country’s population overall. The available material does not establish how well these findings represent workers outside the four surveyed countries or people not reached by the online survey.
Peer Review and Further Evidence
The immediate next step is publication of any revised version or peer-reviewed assessment. The current paper is an arXiv preprint, so its methods and results have not yet been independently evaluated through journal peer review. The author’s paper says the survey support came from Google DeepMind; readers can use that disclosure alongside the study’s methods when judging the evidence.
Further research would be needed to test whether stated motivations predict decisions in real labor-market changes, and whether the patterns persist across different countries and types of workers. For now, the survey offers a snapshot of how respondents describe work and react to a hypothetical income guarantee. It does not establish how an AI-driven employment shock would unfold or which policies would best address its effects.
Key Questions
What did the survey find about quitting for guaranteed income?
About three in four respondents said they would leave at 100% of their salary, while about one in five said they would stay even at 120%, with health coverage, pension and paid leave preserved. These were hypothetical responses.
Who took part in the survey?
The online survey included 8,234 working-age adults: respondents in Denmark, India, the UK and the US. More in Common fielded it in June and July 2026 using national quotas for age, gender, education and region.
What reasons for working did the paper identify?
Among respondents the paper could classify, the largest group was primarily motivated by the work itself, such as purpose and learning. Others were chiefly motivated by colleagues and belonging, status and recognition, or pay and benefits.
Has the study been peer-reviewed?
No. The paper was posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026, as a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed. Its findings may change in later versions.
Does the study show that basic income cannot replace work?
No. Jacobs argues that income support may not replace all the benefits people get from work, but the survey does not test the effects of an actual basic-income program. Its central evidence comes from self-reported answers to hypothetical questions.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
