🔍 Read the full analysis: The Human Side Of AI At Work: What 8,234 Workers Value 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 2026 survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, US, Denmark and India found that many respondents put purpose, community or status ahead of pay when describing what matters in a job. About one in five said they would not quit even for guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary, though the study is a preprint based on stated preferences, not observed behavior.
A survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, US, Denmark and India found that many respondents value purpose, colleagues and recognition in their jobs alongside pay—and about one in five said they would not leave even for guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary. The findings appear in a preprint posted October 29 on arXiv by Julian Jacobs, affiliated with the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind; they offer a snapshot of stated preferences, not proof of how workers would act if AI changed their jobs.
The paper, titled “What is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI,” groups respondents by the leading reason they gave for valuing a job. Among respondents the researchers could classify, 33% were driven mainly 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’s figure says 73.7% put a non-financial reason first.
To test how much income might persuade people to stop working, the survey offered guaranteed payments in increments from 60% to 120% of current salary, while keeping healthcare, pension and paid leave. A slight majority said they would leave at 80% of salary, and roughly three-quarters at 100%. At 120%, about 20% still said they would stay. Among those who accepted an offer, the median threshold was 70% of salary and the average was 76%.
The paper reports that the 120% holdout share was similar across household income groups: 21% among lower-income respondents, 18% among middle-income respondents and 22% among higher-income respondents. The share was 21% among white-collar workers and 17% among blue-collar workers. These figures describe responses to a hypothetical survey question; they do not measure actual resignation decisions.
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
Income Cannot Capture Every Job Value
The findings bear on debates about how societies and employers might respond if AI reduces demand for some kinds of work. Jacobs argues that income support, including a possible basic income, may be needed during an AI-related labor shock, but money alone may not replace what people gain from work, such as purpose, social ties or recognition. That is the author’s interpretation of the survey, rather than a demonstrated outcome of an income-support program.
For employers, the results suggest that compensation is not the only factor workers say matters. If jobs change, reducing hours or replacing tasks may also affect learning, contribution and workplace relationships. The survey does not establish which workplace changes would preserve those values, or whether respondents would prioritize them when facing real financial choices.
The study also reports concern about AI job displacement: 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. Those are respondents’ expectations, not forecasts of actual job losses.
Products Worth Considering
Jackery Explorer 1000 v2 Portable Power Station
Bose QuietComfort Headphones (2nd Gen), Wireless Noise-Cancelling Over-Ear Headphones, Black
Apple AirPods Pro 3 Wireless Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Survey Was Conducted
The survey was fielded in June and July 2026 by polling organization More in Common. It included 2,032 respondents 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, then applied cross-sectional regression models with controls including income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time work and country.
Respondents rated job-related factors such as pay, benefits, purpose, learning, social contribution, belonging, meeting people and status. The researchers used those answers to assign four “Work Values Profiles,” then compared the profiles with responses about guaranteed income, AI-related job concerns and politics. The paper says its survey was supported by Google DeepMind, Jacobs’s employer, and that its views do not necessarily reflect the views of Oxford or DeepMind.
The work is a 39-page, single-author preprint in general economics, posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026. It has not been peer-reviewed. Its results may change in later versions, and survey answers cannot establish how people would behave when faced with actual job loss or a guaranteed payment.
“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, the paper’s author
What Hypothetical Answers Cannot Show
The survey records what people said they would do under a hypothetical guaranteed-income offer. It does not show whether they would actually quit, how their choices might change with household obligations or job conditions, or whether an income program could replace work’s social and personal benefits. The reported differences between work-value groups are associations, not evidence of cause and effect.
Some comparisons also need care. India’s reported 28.8% holdout share was higher than the figures for the other countries, but the paper notes that its online Indian sample was younger, more urban and more educated than the country overall. The study also finds no statistically significant differences between work-value groups in populist vote intention, despite links between AI-related industry concerns and more pessimistic views among purpose- and community-driven respondents.
Because the paper is not peer-reviewed, its analysis and figures could be revised. The supplied findings do not establish whether the survey sample represents every worker in the four countries or how responses would translate into policy outcomes.
Peer Review and Later Versions
The next checkpoints are whether Jacobs publishes a revised version and whether the paper receives peer review. Readers should check later versions for changes to the analysis, sample limitations and interpretation of the income-offer results. The current preprint does not set out a confirmed publication timetable.
Further research would need to test whether the stated preferences predict behavior in real labor-market settings—for example, when workers face actual changes in pay, hours or job security. Until then, the survey is evidence about how respondents describe the value of work, not a forecast of how AI will affect employment or a test of whether basic income would compensate for losses beyond wages.
Key Questions
What did the survey find about why people work?
Among respondents the researchers could classify, 33% mainly valued the work itself, 23% colleagues and belonging, 17% status and recognition, and 26% pay and benefits. These categories describe survey responses, not necessarily the reasons people would give in every work decision.
How many respondents would stay for 120% of their salary?
About one in five said they would not quit for guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary, with healthcare, pension and paid leave retained. This was a hypothetical question, not an observed resignation rate.
Is the paper peer-reviewed?
No. It is a preprint posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026 and has not been peer-reviewed. The results 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 associate with work, but the survey did not test a basic-income policy or measure real-world outcomes. Its findings are based on respondents’ stated preferences.
Who funded the survey?
The paper says the survey was supported by Google DeepMind. It also says the views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Oxford or DeepMind.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
