Your economic situation shapes your AI attitudes
Overall, respondents rate the quality of life improvement over the past 50 years at 3.63 out of 5, and their expectations for the next 50 years at 3.67 (Charts 6, 7). Each step up the income ladder corresponds to roughly 0.3 points more optimism on both past and future assessments, from 3.00/3.16 for struggling respondents to 3.97/3.90 for comfortable ones.
The optimism gap: looking back vs looking forward
Mean scores on 5-point scale (1=pessimistic, 5=optimistic) — by household economic situation
Overall
1,041
Struggling
45
Stretched
226
Getting by
474
Comfortable
296
1
2
3
4
5
Very Pessimistic
Very Optimistic
Quality of life compared to 50 years ago
Expectations of quality of life 50 years from now
At the regional level, Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia are the only regions where future expectations significantly exceed assessments of past progress (4.39 vs 3.97, and 4.02 vs 3.71 respectively). Western Europe, East Asia and Oceania tilt the other way.
The starkest difference is Eastern Europe, where respondents give the past 50 years the highest score of any region (4.06) but rate the next 50 years among the lowest (3.22). People in these countries have experienced transformative improvement since the end of the Cold War but appear sceptical that the coming decades will deliver anything comparable.
Regional Attitudes Towards Progress
Regional sentiment comparing "Life is better than 50 years ago" (Past) vs. "Life will be better in 50 years" (Future)
Overall
1,041
Western Europe
139
Sub-Saharan Africa
144
South Asia
227
Southeast Asia
82
Middle East & N. Africa
80
Eastern Europe
53
East Asia
104
Latin America
89
North America
136
Oceania
13
1
2
3
4
5
Very Pessimistic
Very Optimistic
Quality of life compared to 50 years ago
Expectations of quality of life 50 years from now
People's existing material circumstances consistently shape how they see AI's future. Financially comfortable respondents are far more likely to believe AI benefits will reach them personally, at 59%, compared to 40% among those who are struggling (Chart 13). The gradient is steady across all four income groups, suggesting this is not simply an optimism gap between the very rich and very poor.
Will AI's economic benefits reach you?
Expectations by household income level
Overall
1,035
24%
24%
52%
Struggling
45
29%
31%
40%
Stretched
226
28%
24%
49%
Getting by
474
25%
25%
50%
Comfortable
296
20%
21%
59%
Unlikely
Neutral
Likely
Wealthier regions show a similar pattern in how they'd prefer to benefit from AI-driven productivity gains. Western European respondents prefer less work over more money by a 56-33% margin, while South Asian and Sub-Saharan African respondents tilt heavily toward more money (62% and 61% respectively; Chart 12). Globally the split is close to even (41% vs 48%), but the regional variation is wide. This likely reflects basic material priorities; where incomes are lower and public services thinner, the abstract appeal of leisure gives way to the concrete need for higher earnings.
Would you rather work less or earn more?
If AI made you more productive, how would you prefer to benefit? — by region
Overall
1,036
21%
20%
11%
28%
20%
Western Europe
139
28%
29%
11%
18%
15%
Sub-Saharan Africa
144
19%
13%
7%
27%
34%
South Asia
227
14%
15%
9%
39%
23%
Southeast Asia
82
20%
18%
5%
35%
22%
Middle East & N. Africa
80
11%
33%
11%
28%
17%
Eastern Europe
53
25%
16%
6%
31%
22%
East Asia
104
24%
21%
19%
27%
9%
Latin America
89
25%
20%
10%
25%
20%
18%
North America
136
24%
19%
19%
19%
19%
Oceania
13
31%
31%
23%
8%
8%
Strongly prefer less work
Somewhat prefer less work
No preference
Somewhat prefer more money
Strongly prefer more money
Survey participants were presented with two visions of a future where AI handles most tasks. In World A, the "Guaranteed Jobs Society," human roles are maintained in areas like teaching, caregiving and skilled craftsmanship, with everyone guaranteed a job under shorter hours and better conditions. In World B, the "Guaranteed Income Society," jobs are no longer central to life. Everyone receives a guaranteed income and people are free to study, create, volunteer or spend time with family, with social recognition tied to community contribution rather than employment. Overall, more people want guaranteed jobs (52%) than guaranteed income (39%), with 9% expressing no preference (Chart 20).
Two visions of a post-work future
Which world would you rather live in? (n=1,024)
Guaranteed Jobs Society
Work stays central. Government guarantee jobs for all.
Guaranteed Income Society
AI does most work. Everyone receives enough to live well.
31%
21%
9%
20%
19%
Strongly:
Guaranteed Jobs
Somewhat:
Guaranteed Jobs
No
preference
Somewhat:
Guaranteed Income
Strongly:
Guaranteed Income
The guaranteed jobs vs. guaranteed income question (Chart 21b) also reveals how much current employment shapes preferences about the future. Among those with good jobs, 56% prefer World A and only 36% choose World B (Chart 21b). Those without good jobs flip, with 51% preferring World B and 40% choosing World A. The middle group, those only somewhat satisfied, stays close to the good-job group at 54%. This suggests the preference shift toward guaranteed income is concentrated among people who are genuinely dissatisfied with their work, rather than those who are merely ambivalent.
The less satisfied you are with your job, the more you want guaranteed income
Two Worlds preference by current job satisfaction
Yes, my job is a "good" job
272
56%
8%
36%
Somewhat, my job is okay
449
53%
9%
38%
No, my job is not a "good" job
146
40%
9%
51%
Guaranteed Jobs Society
No preference
Guaranteed Income Society
Pessimists about their family's future are more likely to frame wealth-sharing as compensation for job displacement (43%) than optimists are (29%). Optimists lean instead toward the idea that AI is built on shared knowledge and its benefits should therefore be shared (50% vs 37% among pessimists; Chart 43f). The reasoning people reach for reflects the future they expect, with those who see AI as a threat anchoring their case in loss. Those who see it as an opportunity appeal to collective ownership. This distinction may matter for policy design, since compensation framing implies a temporary remedy while shared-knowledge framing implies a permanent entitlement.
Does your outlook shape why you think AI wealth should be shared?
Bars: "Which best explains why people should receive a share of the wealth created by AI?"
Groups: "How likely is it that life for your family will be profoundly better in the next 50 years?"
Overall
1,015
47%
33%
13%
8%
Pessimist
169
37%
43%
14%
7%
Neutral
177
43%
35%
12%
10%
Optimist
669
50%
29%
13%
8%
Built on shared knowledge, so benefits should be shared
Compensation for job losses from automation
Payment for personal data used to train AI
Maintain economic stability amid disruption