There are people who say that “every billionaire is a policy failure.” These critics argue that extreme wealth concentration is a sign of the ineffectiveness of current tax systems. They want governments to introduce more robust redistributive policies to reduce economic inequality.

I share the view that economic inequality has risen to unhealthy levels over the past few decades. However, I disagree in principle with the notion that it should be unacceptable for some people to become fabulously wealthy, especially when that wealth has been earned through hard work and sacrifice. Indeed, the ultra-rich class causes all sorts of friction in society. But our lives would be much poorer if those job creators and inventors of useful products weren’t in our midst. To my mind, we have to learn to take the bad with the good.

I have lived long enough to see many different economic and technological trends come and go. Societies have managed to adapt to those changes and disruptions reasonably well. The moment we are in today, though, feels decidedly different from anything I have experienced in the past.

No new technology in recent history has threatened to displace millions of humans from their jobs, as many people fear AI systems will do. Worse, it is obvious that the AI revolution will quickly concentrate both wealth and power in the hands of a much smaller group of people than the world has experienced at any time in living memory. The combination of these two dynamics will introduce a level of economic inequality that will make what we have been complaining about in the last few decades feel like a beach party.

Two recently published stories highlight the nature and scale of the emerging problem. The Economist says that “an AI windfall is reshaping South Korean society.” South Korea’s benchmark stock index, KOSPI, has doubled in value over the last 12 months. That was driven mainly by the eye-popping profits of two companies, Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix, which dominate the index. Both companies manufacture high-bandwidth memory chips that are in extremely high demand by AI companies.

Last month, Samsung Electronics reported that its operating profit for the second quarter of this year increased 1,800% year-over-year. SK Hynix posted a smaller—but hugely impressive—gain of 557% for the quarter.

After labor unions threatened strikes last year, Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix reportedly agreed to set aside 10% of their operating profits for bonuses. The Economist reports workers at SK Hynix could receive $500,000 per person in bonuses this year, and an estimated $800,000 next year. At Samsung, bonuses are expected to surpass $400,000 for each worker this year. For perspective, the average annual salary in South Korea is said to be less than $40,000.

The Economist describes engineers at those two high-flying companies as a new class of workers that is ‘neither white- nor blue-collar, but “silicon-collar.”’ South Korean companies that help arrange marriages are said to have reported a big jump in the desirability of those engineers.

Whatever we think of them, as gold-diggers or something else, those suitors in South Korea seem to be saying: If you can’t beat them, join them.

Our problem here in America, at least for now, is not with fortune hunters. It is with the silicon-collar workers themselves, and the impact they are having on the real estate market. In a recent article, the Wall Street Journal painted a picture of how difficult it has become for young people moving to San Francisco for jobs to find places to rent.

Four recent college graduates saw a listing for a $7,800-per-month unit and were prepared to pay the asking price. When they arrived, there were ten people already waiting in line to speak with the landlord. A bidding war promptly ensued, and the four ended up paying $10,000 a month to get the place.

A 28-year-old woman who works at a venture capital firm in the city tried to rent a two-bedroom apartment located on a high floor of a luxury building. The listing price was $10,000 per month. Because of the intense competition, she offered to pay three months’ rent in cash upfront; that didn’t help. She “lost out to an employee at one of the big AI labs” who “literally paid for the whole year.”

The Wall Street Journal article went on to say that to improve their chances of finding a place to rent, people are bringing “flowers and wine for listing agents at open houses.”

Escalating real estate prices in certain locations are not the only things we should worry about. Development of AI systems will create inflationary pressures throughout the economy. Data center buildout is reportedly raising electricity prices in some places. Massive borrowing by AI companies will push up interest rates, which will affect every American—and people around the world.

No one knows how the AI story is going to play out. If things continue on the current trajectory, it is safe to say that the socioeconomic model that we have operated under for more than a century will no longer work.

The South Korean suitors who come up empty-handed in their hunt for “romantic” partners within their country’s nouveau-riche class will not sit quietly in their homes, especially if AI has also eliminated their jobs and they have no other ways to make a living. Likewise, we should expect frustration to build up to dangerous levels among the young people in San Francisco and elsewhere in America who struggle to find both jobs and places to live. Societies everywhere should begin taking steps soon to prevent these disenchantments from igniting violent social upheavals.

Unhappiness with paying taxes is as old as humanity itself. But in a world where millions of people may be sidelined by AI systems, there will be no choice but to increase the level of wealth redistribution.

In basketball and football, coaches call for timeouts for a variety of reasons. Sometimes, when they sense that their teams have lost their way in a game, they ask for a brief halt in play. They then huddle with their players and use that time to impart ideas about how to approach the rest of the game. Whether we are ultrawealthy or poor, or something in between, we all belong on one team because we share a planet. It feels as though our global community currently finds itself in one of those wild games where it needs some kind of pause to discuss strategy. If we just keep on playing the way we have been, the risk is that we will lose in calamitous fashion.

Which of our coaches can we count on to step up and call this urgent timeout?