South Korea’s Deputy Prime Minister Bae Kyung-hoon has issued a stark warning about the growing concentration of AI-generated wealth, saying the benefits must reach the wider public to avoid escalating labour conflicts. Speaking to CNBC on Friday, Bae cited the near-strike at Samsung Electronics this week and Hyundai’s ongoing integration of Atlas robots as clear signals that the AI era is not a distant future but a present reality with immediate social costs.
“In the age of AI, more of these super-large companies will continue to emerge,” Bae said. “In that process, labour-management conflicts may continue to arise, and when they do, it will be important to resolve them wisely through dialogue.” The deputy prime minister’s comments come at a critical juncture for South Korea, whose economy is heavily dependent on semiconductor manufacturing—a sector that has exploded in value thanks to the global AI boom.
Just days earlier, Samsung’s largest labour union had been preparing an 18-day strike that, according to South Korea’s prime minister, could have cost the country an estimated $668 million per day. The walkout was suspended on Wednesday after government-mediated negotiations resulted in a tentative deal. The union had demanded that 15% of Samsung’s operating profit be set aside for bonuses and formalized in employment contracts; the company had offered 10%. The proposed agreement is now being voted on by union members until 27 May.
The Wealth at Stake
At the heart of the dispute is a staggering financial picture. Samsung’s Q1 2026 operating profit reached 57.2 trillion won (approximately $45.6 billion), an eightfold year-on-year increase driven almost entirely by high-bandwidth memory chips used in AI infrastructure. The Lee family, which controls Samsung, saw its wealth double to $45.5 billion in just twelve months. Samsung’s share price has surged nearly 144% year to date. SK Hynix, the other dominant Korean memory chipmaker, is up almost 200%. The benchmark Kospi index has gained more than 86% in 2026, surpassing last year’s 75% rise. The numbers are breathtaking—and visible to every citizen.
The disconnect between corporate windfalls and worker compensation is not unique to Samsung. Bae pointed to automaker Hyundai as another pressure point. Hyundai, which acquired a controlling stake in Boston Dynamics in 2021, is integrating the well-known Atlas humanoid robots into its manufacturing plants. Bae acknowledged that this deployment has generated “many concerns and worries” about the impact on workers. Hyundai’s ambitious AI robotics strategy, unveiled at CES 2026, positions the company to lead what it calls a “human-centred robotics era.” For assembly-line workers, however, the phrase rings hollow when robots begin taking over tasks once performed by humans.
A Sensitive Political Context
The political dimension of AI wealth redistribution surfaced dramatically on 12 May, when South Korean presidential official Kim Yeong Beom proposed on Facebook that excess tax revenue generated from the AI and semiconductor sectors be distributed directly to citizens. The post triggered turmoil in financial markets: shares of Samsung and SK Hynix dropped sharply before an official clarified that the proposal was Kim’s personal opinion, not government policy. The fact that a single speculative post about redistributing AI wealth could move billions of dollars in market capitalisation underscores how explosive the topic has become.
Bae framed Seoul’s goal as building an “AI-inclusive society, a society where no one is left behind in the AI era.” The language echoes similar commitments from European and American policymakers, but South Korea’s position is uniquely vulnerable. Chips accounted for 37% of South Korea’s total exports in April. Samsung and SK Hynix together represent a disproportionate share of the Kospi’s gains. The AI boom is not one sector among many for South Korea; it is the sector.
When asked whether the concentration of market gains in just two companies represented a vulnerability, Bae argued that Samsung and SK Hynix sit atop a broader ecosystem of suppliers and service companies that also benefit indirectly. He said South Korea is now trying to establish a competitive advantage in “physical AI”—the category that encompasses robots, autonomous vehicles, and industrial systems capable of sensing, reasoning, and acting in real-world environments. “Semiconductors and AI infrastructure provide the fundamental foundation,” Bae said. “On top of that, Korea is trying to build out the full spectrum of AI capabilities, including various hardware equipment, software, and related services.”
Global Patterns of AI-Driven Displacement
The tension between AI-driven productivity and workforce displacement is not confined to South Korea. In Detroit, the Big Three automakers have eliminated 20,000 white-collar jobs while simultaneously posting hundreds of AI-related positions. Salesforce cut 4,000 support staff after deploying AI agents. The pattern is consistent across industries and geographies: AI makes companies more profitable and workforces smaller, and the question of who captures the gains is becoming the defining political issue of the technology’s adoption.
South Korea’s version of this question is sharper than most because the gains are so highly concentrated. Two companies, in one sector, have seen their combined market value increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in six months. The workers who operate the fabrication lines that produce the memory chips powering the AI boom nearly walked off the job this week. Bae’s statement that “the benefits of AI must also go to the public” is an acknowledgment that the market alone will not solve the distribution problem.
The challenge is not merely economic but social. As AI automates more tasks, the bargaining power of labour diminishes unless workers can pivot to new roles. South Korea’s government has been investing heavily in reskilling programmes, but the pace of technological change is outstripping the capacity of traditional education systems. The Samsung strike was averted for now, but the underlying issues remain unresolved. Next time, the union may not return to the negotiating table. Next time, the disruption could be far greater.
Hyundai’s robot rollout is still in its early stages. The company has said it plans to use Atlas robots for dangerous or repetitive tasks, not to replace all human workers. Yet the history of automation in manufacturing suggests otherwise. The same logic that drove the adoption of robotic arms in the 1980s—efficiency, cost reduction, quality control—now applies to humanoid robots that can learn complex tasks. If Hyundai succeeds in creating a “human-centred robotics era,” the human part of that equation may become increasingly marginalised.
Policymakers in Seoul are acutely aware that their country’s economic miracle was built on a compact between chaebol (large business conglomerates) and workers, where stable employment and rising wages accompanied corporate growth. That compact is now fraying. The Samsung strike was a symptom of a deeper erosion: workers no longer believe that company profits will trickle down to them. The government’s role as mediator is no longer sufficient; Bae’s speech suggests that active redistribution may be necessary.
Yet the path forward is fraught with difficulty. The same market forces that made Samsung and SK Hynix global powerhouses also make them sensitive to any regulatory or tax changes that could reduce their competitiveness. South Korea cannot afford to alienate its flagship companies, but it cannot afford to ignore the social unrest brewing beneath the surface. The Biden administration in the United States has embraced industrial policy to spread AI benefits through infrastructure and education. The European Union has deployed its AI Act and a social agenda to protect workers. South Korea must craft its own response, tailored to its unique dependence on a single industry.
Bae’s call for an “AI-inclusive society” is a starting point, but without concrete measures—such as profit-sharing mandates, universal basic services funded by AI taxes, or massive investment in lifelong learning—the phrase risks becoming hollow rhetoric. The Samsung union’s demand for 15% of operating profit was not an arbitrary number; it reflected a calculation of what workers believe their contribution is worth. The company’s counter-offer of 10% suggests the gap is bridgeable, but the underlying principle remains contested.
Meanwhile, the global AI race shows no signs of slowing. The United States and China are investing billions in AI infrastructure, talent, and regulation. South Korea’s advantage in memory chips may not last forever as competitors in Taiwan, Japan, and elsewhere ramp up production. The window for using AI wealth to build a more equitable society is finite. Bae’s warning is timely, but the true test will come when the next Samsung contract cycle begins, and when every Hyundai factory installs another Atlas robot.