The Pay Report
Security may be commanding a premium of its own in a slower hiring market. In a Pollfish survey of 1,020 employed U.S. workers conducted July 17, 2026, and published by Monster on August 10, 54% said they would accept a lower salary in exchange for greater job security. The one-day online poll measures stated preferences; Monster did not publish the exact question wording, and a hypothetical answer is not the same as a pay cut someone has actually taken.
How big a cut
The survey breaks the answer down further. According to Monster, 26% said they would take a pay cut of up to 5%, and another 28% would accept a reduction of 5% or more, including 11% who would accept a cut greater than 10%. More broadly, 61% said they would sacrifice at least one aspect of their compensation or workplace experience for more security, while 39% would give up nothing.
Other trade-offs respondents said they would consider included bonuses or incentives (26%), perks or benefits (26%), flexibility including remote work (23%) and higher health-insurance costs (17%). The sample was 52% female; 60% worked fully in an office, 22% hybrid and 18% remotely.
What security means to a candidate
The trade is not a simple comparison of two salaries. Workers weigh predictable schedules, health coverage, retirement contributions, commuting time and the perceived risk of a sudden layoff. Some cannot absorb any cut in monthly income, however stable the alternative job looks. A single survey percentage cannot say which of those considerations drove individual answers, or show that accepting lower pay actually buys lasting security.
For recruiters, the practical lesson is in how candidates talk about stability. They may be asking about the business’s workload, the team’s turnover, whether a position is funded, or how far ahead schedules are published. None of that appears in an advertised salary. Employers should describe real working arrangements and benefits specifically, and avoid implying guarantees against layoffs they cannot make.
Context, not cause
The broader market helps explain why the question resonates. Hiring has been slow, with the government’s July hires rate at 3.2%, and experts in Indeed’s September outlook survey expect only a slim rise in job postings through year-end. Those indicators describe conditions; they do not prove that fear of losing work caused the Monster result.
The useful follow-up is behavioral: whether workers who cite security actually change jobs, what pay difference they accept, and whether the move delivers more stable employment. Until then, the 54% figure is evidence of a stated priority, not a new benchmark for compensation.
Sources
- Monster, “Job Security Statistics,” August 10, 2026 (Pollfish survey of 1,020 employed U.S. workers, July 17, 2026). https://www.monster.com/career-advice/research/job-security-statistics
- Indeed Hiring Lab, “Q3 Labor Market Outlook Survey,” September 24, 2026. https://hiringlab.indeed.com/2026/09/24/q3-labor-market-outlook-survey/
- U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Job Openings and Labor Turnover — July 2026,” September 1, 2026. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm
Featured photo: A lone worker at a desk in a quiet office. Representative image of office employment; it does not depict survey respondents. Photo: Jadon Barnes, via Wikimedia Commons (CC0). Cropped from the original.
.jpg){kind=link}