South Korea’s Deputy Prime Minister Bae Kyung-hoon said the wealth created by artificial intelligence must benefit the wider public, warning that the labour tensions that nearly shut down Samsung Electronics this week are not an isolated event but a preview of what the AI era will produce. Speaking to CNBC on Friday, Bae said that as AI generates unprecedented corporate profits, the question of how that wealth is distributed, and whether the technology worsens inequality, is now 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 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.
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.”
Global context of AI-driven inequality
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 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.
Historically, South Korea has navigated industrial transformations through a combination of state-led industrial policy and strong labour unions. The 1987 democratisation movement led to the formation of powerful unions that extracted significant wage gains during the country’s rapid industrialisation. However, the rise of chaebols like Samsung and Hyundai concentrated economic power, and successive governments struggled to balance corporate competitiveness with worker protections. The AI era introduces a new dimension: unlike previous automation waves that primarily affected manufacturing, AI now threatens white-collar jobs in finance, law, and even software development. This broadens the potential for social unrest.
The Samsung strike was averted, but the underlying grievances remain. Workers argue that the company’s record profits should translate into higher bonuses and more secure employment contracts. Samsung’s management counters that it must invest heavily in R&D to maintain its lead in the AI memory chip market. The standoff mirrors a broader debate: should AI windfalls be reinvested in innovation or distributed as dividends and wages? The answer will shape not only corporate governance but also the social contract in the world’s most AI-dependent economy.
Bae’s comments suggest the government is aware that it cannot afford to let these tensions fester. South Korea faces demographic decline, with one of the world’s lowest birth rates, meaning that labour productivity gains from AI are essential to sustain economic growth. But if those gains flow overwhelmingly to capital, social cohesion could fracture. The deputy PM’s call for an “AI-inclusive society” implies that public policy must actively intervene to redistribute benefits, possibly through tax reforms, social safety nets, or direct cash transfers. However, as the market reaction to Kim Yeong Beom’s proposal shows, any hint of redistribution can unsettle investors who drive the very wealth creation.
The situation in South Korea is a microcosm of a global challenge. As AI reshapes industries, political leaders everywhere will face pressure to ensure that the technology’s benefits are shared broadly. South Korea, with its unique dependence on a single high-tech sector, is on the front lines. The outcome of its experiment in AI governance will be closely watched by other nations grappling with similar dilemmas. Whether through dialogue, regulation, or direct intervention, the question Bae raised will only grow more urgent.