🔍 Read the full analysis: What Do 8,234 Workers Believe Work Provides Beyond A Job? on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on office and shipping supplies
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
A June–July 2026 survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, US, Denmark and India found that many respondents ranked purpose, belonging or status ahead of pay as a reason to work. Most said they would leave a job for guaranteed income below their current salary, but about one in five said they would stay even at 120% of pay. The findings come from a preprint that has not been peer-reviewed and measure stated preferences, not observed behavior.
A survey of 8,234 working-age adults in the UK, US, Denmark and India found that many place purpose, social connection or recognition ahead of pay when describing what matters in a job, while about one in five said they would not quit even for guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary. The results appear in a not-yet-peer-reviewed preprint by Julian Jacobs of the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind, posted to arXiv on October 29.
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. Participants answered questions about job values, guaranteed income, how they might spend time outside work, and their views about AI and employment.
Among respondents the paper could classify by work values, 33% were primarily driven 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-financial reason first. The share primarily motivated by the work itself was similar across household-income groups, at 32% for low-income, 33% for middle-income and 34% for high-income respondents.
A separate question offered respondents guaranteed income in steps from 60% to 120% of their current salary, while retaining health coverage, pension and paid leave, and asked whether they would quit. A slight majority said they would leave by an offer of 80% of salary, and around three in four by 100%. About 20% still declined at 120%. Among those who accepted an offer, the median point at which they would quit was 70% of salary; the mean was 76%, according to the paper.
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 Job Design Matters Beyond Pay
The findings suggest that a cash payment alone may not replace everything people say work provides. For employers and policymakers considering how AI could reshape jobs, the results point to purpose, relationships and recognition as possible parts of workers’ experience—not just income. The survey does not show how people would behave if their jobs actually disappeared, but it raises a practical question for workforce planning: whether income support can address the loss of structure, community or contribution as well as lost wages.
The paper also reports that 40% of white-collar respondents thought AI was at least somewhat likely to replace their job within ten years, compared with 29% of manual and service workers. Those figures describe respondents’ expectations, not measured probabilities of job loss. The paper’s analysis finds that purpose- and community-driven respondents became more pessimistic when they expected AI to hurt jobs in their industry, but it does not establish that those work values caused their views.
Estimated differences in the guaranteed-income amount respondents required before quitting were small after statistical controls: people motivated by purpose sought about 1.9 to 5.8 percentage points more income than pay-motivated respondents, depending on the method. The paper illustrates that range as roughly $1,100 to $3,500 a year for someone earning $60,000. These are survey-based estimates, not observed wage demands or predictions of future labor-market outcomes.
Products Worth Considering
Apple iMac 2024 All-in-One Desktop with M4 Chip, 24‑inch Retina Display, 16GB Unified Memory, 256GB SSD, Silver
Logitech MX Master 4 for Mac, Ergonomic Bluetooth Mouse with Haptic Feedback, Ultra-Fast Scrolling, USB-C Charging, for MacOS, iPadOS, Windo
Apple MacBook Pro (14.2-inch, 2025) – M5 chip, 16GB Unified Memory, 1TB SSD, Space Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Survey Tested Work’s Value
The paper, What is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI, is a 39-page preprint with 17 figures, submitted to arXiv’s General Economics category on October 29, 2026. It is a single-author paper by Julian Jacobs, affiliated with the University of Oxford and Google DeepMind. A preprint is an early research paper that has not completed peer review, and the author notes that later versions may change.
To group respondents, the survey used a nine-item set of questions about what matters in a job, including pay, benefits, purpose, learning, contribution to society, belonging, meeting people and social status. It also asked what guaranteed salary might persuade a respondent to quit. The paper uses cross-sectional statistical models that control for factors such as income, occupation, age, gender, education, part-time work and country.
The work was supported by Google DeepMind, the author’s employer, according to the paper. It says the views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Oxford or DeepMind. The source article reported finding no analysis that favored a company; readers should still take the disclosed funding and the paper’s unreviewed status into account when weighing the results.
“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 results are self-reported answers to hypothetical questions. They cannot establish whether respondents would actually quit at the stated income levels, or how people would respond to real unemployment, a guaranteed-income program or AI-related job change. The paper’s cross-sectional design also cannot show that a particular work value causes a particular attitude or behavior.
The preprint has not been peer-reviewed, and the author says findings could change in later versions. The source material does not provide enough detail here to evaluate every survey question or the full statistical analysis independently. The paper also reports notably different holdout shares across countries, including 28.8% in India and 16% in the UK; it cautions that the Indian online sample was younger, more urban and more educated than the country as a whole.
Political conclusions are especially limited. The source says groups did not differ significantly in populist vote intention in the paper’s tables. It therefore does not support treating the survey as evidence that workers who value purpose or community are more likely to support a particular political position.
Peer Review and Later Versions
The next research milestone is whether the preprint receives peer review or is revised. The author says future versions may change, so the figures and interpretations should be treated as provisional. No follow-up study or publication date is specified in the source material.
For now, the survey offers a snapshot of stated views from four countries, rather than a forecast of how AI will affect jobs or proof that income support can—or cannot—replace workplace meaning. Further evidence would be needed to test those questions with observed behavior, broader samples and changes tracked over time.
Key Questions
What did the survey ask workers?
It asked 8,234 working-age adults about what they value in a job and whether they would quit for guaranteed income set at different shares of their current salary, with health coverage, pension and paid leave retained.
How many respondents said they would stay at 120% of salary?
About one in five said they would not quit even at guaranteed income equal to 120% of their salary. This is a stated response to a hypothetical question, not observed behavior.
What did respondents most often value besides pay?
In the paper’s classification, 33% were mainly motivated by the work itself, such as purpose, learning or contribution, while 23% were driven mainly by colleagues and belonging and 17% by status and recognition.
Has the study been peer-reviewed?
No. It was posted to arXiv on October 29, 2026 as a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed, according to the supplied source material.
Does the study prove basic income cannot replace work?
No. The author argues that income support may not replace all the non-financial benefits people associate with work. The survey does not test an actual basic-income program or measure what happens when workers lose their jobs.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
