South Korea’s Deputy Prime Minister Bae Kyung-hoon has stated unequivocally that the wealth created by artificial intelligence must be shared with the broader public, warning that the labour tensions that nearly shut down Samsung Electronics this week are not an isolated event but a harbinger of what the AI era will produce. In an interview with CNBC on Friday, Bae said that as AI drives unprecedented corporate profits, the question of how that wealth is distributed—and whether the technology worsens inequality—has become a matter of national policy.
“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 reference was unmistakable. Samsung’s largest labour union had been preparing an 18-day strike that South Korea’s prime minister warned could cost $668 million per day. The walkout was suspended on Wednesday after government-mediated negotiations produced a tentative deal. Workers had demanded that 15% of Samsung’s operating profit be allocated to bonuses and formalised in employment contracts. Samsung had offered 10%. The union is voting on the proposed agreement from Friday to 27 May.
The dispute was not abstract. Samsung’s Q1 2026 operating profit reached ₩57.2 trillion, an eightfold year-on-year increase, driven almost entirely by high-bandwidth memory chips for AI infrastructure. The Lee family’s wealth doubled to $45.5 billion in twelve months. Samsung’s share price has risen nearly 144% year to date. SK Hynix is up almost 200%. The Kospi index has gained more than 86% in 2026, surpassing last year’s 75% rise. The wealth is real, concentrated, and visible.
Bae, who also serves as South Korea’s minister for science and technology, pointed at automaker Hyundai as another pressure point. The company is integrating Boston Dynamics’ Atlas robots into its manufacturing processes, a deployment that Bae said has generated “many concerns and worries” about the impact on workers. Hyundai acquired a controlling stake in Boston Dynamics in 2021 and announced its AI robotics strategy at CES 2026, positioning itself to lead what it calls a “human-centred robotics era.” The framing is aspirational. For workers on the production line, the concern is more immediate.
Political Context and Market Sensitivity
The political context adds urgency. On 12 May, South Korean presidential official Kim Yeong Beom proposed on Facebook to distribute excess tax revenue generated from Korea’s AI and semiconductor sectors directly to citizens. The post triggered turmoil in markets, with Samsung and SK Hynix shares dropping sharply before an official reportedly clarified that the proposal was Kim’s personal opinion and not a subject of formal government discussions. The fact that even a speculative post about redistributing AI wealth could move billions in market capitalisation illustrates how sensitive the question 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 unusual. The country’s economy is more dependent on semiconductor manufacturing than any other advanced nation. 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.
Ecosystem vs. Concentration
When asked whether the concentration of market gains in 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. 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.”
The tension between AI-driven productivity and workforce displacement is global. Detroit’s Big Three automakers have cut 20,000 white-collar jobs while posting hundreds of AI 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 Unique Vulnerabilities
South Korea’s version of this question is sharper than most because the gains are so concentrated. Two companies, in one sector, in one country, have seen their combined market value increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in six months. The workers who run 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 acknowledgement that the market alone will not solve the distribution problem. Whether Seoul’s policy response matches the scale of its rhetoric will be tested every time the next Samsung contract cycle arrives, and every time a Hyundai factory installs another Atlas robot.
The semiconductor industry’s centrality to South Korea’s economy cannot be overstated. The country is home to the world’s two largest memory chip makers, Samsung and SK Hynix, which together control over 60% of the global market for DRAM and NAND flash memory. These chips are the building blocks of AI data centres, powering everything from large language models to autonomous driving systems. As AI adoption accelerates, demand for high-bandwidth memory (HBM) has skyrocketed, sending profits and stock prices through the roof. In 2026, Samsung’s HBM sales are expected to quadruple, and SK Hynix has already secured multi-year contracts with major tech firms.
Yet the benefits of this boom have not trickled down to most workers. While executives and shareholders reap rewards, wages for production line workers have barely kept pace with inflation. The union’s demand for a formal profit-sharing mechanism reflects a broader frustration: the gap between corporate success and worker compensation is widening. Samsung’s union, representing about 30,000 employees, has been vocal about the need for a fairer share of the profits generated by their labour. The tentative agreement, which includes a 5% base salary increase and a one-time bonus, may only be a temporary fix.
Hyundai’s robotics push adds another layer of anxiety. The company plans to deploy Atlas robots across multiple factories over the next three years, aiming to automate tasks that are currently performed by humans. While Hyundai claims the robots will handle dangerous or repetitive tasks, unions fear that the ultimate goal is to reduce headcount. The company has already announced plans to hire more AI specialists while freezing hiring in other departments. The result is a growing skills mismatch: workers displaced by robots may not have the qualifications to fill the new AI-centric roles.
Internationally, South Korea is watching similar debates unfold. In the United States, the Biden administration’s CHIPS Act has spurred a semiconductor manufacturing boom, but labour groups have criticised the lack of profit-sharing requirements for companies receiving subsidies. In Europe, the EU’s AI Act focuses on safety and transparency but says little about wealth distribution. South Korea’s approach, with its strong state-led industrial policy and history of tripartite negotiations between government, business, and labour, could become a model—or a cautionary tale.
The government has begun exploring policy options, including tax incentives for companies that share profits with workers, expanded social safety nets for displaced workers, and retraining programmes focused on AI-related skills. However, critics argue that these measures are insufficient and too slow. The Kim Yeong Beom proposal, though unofficial, resonated with many citizens who feel left out of the AI boom. A recent poll found that 72% of South Koreans believe AI will widen the gap between rich and poor, and 68% support government intervention to redistribute AI gains.
Bae’s call for an “AI-inclusive society” is thus both a political necessity and an economic imperative. If South Korea cannot address the distribution problem, it risks social unrest and a backlash that could slow AI adoption. The Samsung strike, though resolved for now, exposed deep-seated tensions that will not disappear. The Hyundai robot deployment will continue to fuel anxieties. The coming months will test whether the government’s rhetoric can be translated into concrete action that benefits the public, not just the shareholders of a few giant companies.