Coexistence and shared prosperity (共存共榮) are achievable only when people recognize the common values they must pursue together. The central question is which values are given priority. Consider Mencius. During the Warring States period, Song Jing—known for stressing peaceful diplomacy—met Mencius while on his way to petition the state of Chu.
Mencius asked, “I admire your efforts to prevent war between Qin and Chu. How do you intend to persuade them?”
Song Jing replied, “I will argue that fighting one another does not serve their interests.”
Big companies widen wage gaps with small firms and nonregular workers
Mencius counseled him: “Appeal to ren and yi—benevolence and righteousness—rather than to profit. When ministers think only of profit, they do not faithfully serve; when children chase profit, they fail to serve their parents. Have rulers, ministers, the wealthy, and siblings abandon profit and embrace virtue when they interact.” He added, “No ruler has ever failed after abandoning profit and embracing ren and yi. (去利 懷仁義 以相接也 然而不王者 未之有也)”
Indeed, our community should pursue mutual prosperity. The reality, however, is different. Many observers are skeptical about the behavior of Korean labor unions. Because Korea’s unions are largely organized on a company-by-company basis and have become dominated by large firms and regular employees, critics say they exacerbate polarization and operate like exclusive clubs. Some militant unions further inflame social conflict by privileging political confrontation and hardline tactics over practical compromise.
In particular, unions at major firms and among regular employees have driven wage and benefits increases that widen pay gaps with small firms and nonregular workers, reinforcing a dual labor market. Rather than negotiating, some unions repeatedly resort to strikes and other collective actions, disrupting production and generating economic losses.
For example, Samsung Electronics—long a focal point of public attention—avoided a catastrophic strike. Still, consider Korea’s semiconductor industry: it is highly cyclical. Performance swings with the economy are large, so firms must manage investments and cost structures flexibly. At present, AI infrastructure spending and demand for high-bandwidth memory (HBM) are aligned, and analysts expect the chip cycle to remain strong through the first half of 2027. Yet most domestic and international experts warn that the cycle’s durability depends on whether companies can successfully monetize AI technologies.
Korean chipmakers, led by Samsung and SK Hynix, have seen unprecedented growth from a surge in memory demand by big tech. Analysts warn, however, that the industry must prepare for the post-boom period. The sector’s structure illustrates the challenge: South Korea holds roughly 70% of the DRAM market but only about 1.5% of the fabless (chip design) market, and unlike Taiwan, it lacks a full-stack semiconductor ecosystem.
Bold investment by management and cooperation from shareholders matter
Uncertainty is rising. The Middle East remains central to global energy supplies and has a direct effect on crude oil prices and logistics costs. Rising international oil prices have already squeezed margins for domestic manufacturers. As a result, the big tech companies that have led AI investment may face declining profitability and growing investment burdens. We should heed analyses that warn eye-popping performance bonuses at Samsung and SK Hynix—bonuses in the hundreds of millions of KRW (on the order of $75,000 USD)—could deepen frustration over income disparities and amplify social anger.
South Korea must become a deep-tech, manufacturing nation to compete globally. That transition requires massive investment. Manufacturing typically needs tens of trillions of KRW in facility investment and R&D before operating profit appears—tens of trillions of KRW (roughly $7.5–$67.5 billion USD). Operating profit depends not only on worker productivity but also on bold investment decisions by management, cooperation from shareholders, macroeconomic and exchange-rate shifts, and global market conditions.
Union demands—such as calls at Samsung and elsewhere to pay “N% of operating profit”—are not persuasive. Those demands neglect the cyclical nature of the industry, mischaracterize contributions to massive capital investment, create serious fairness problems across business units, infringe on shareholder interests, and risk weakening future competitiveness. I urge unions to focus on realistic paths that allow companies and employees to prosper together.
Most Commented