31–40 of 86 posts
Humans are humans. Not "capital." Not "resources." They're f*cking people . Business is business and you have to be mindful of costs. But good lord, is it that hard to understand that treating your employees with basic decency is positive for your company?
Humans are humans. Not "capital." Not "resources." They're f*cking people . Business is business and you have to be mindful of costs. But good lord, is it that hard to understand that treating your employees with basic decency is positive for your company?
Calling employees 'lower-value human capital' reveals a lot about a company's internal culture, regardless of the PR walkback. Even if AI can automate certain tasks, language like this completely destroys team morale and trust. Good leaders should view automation as a tool to empower their team, not just a weapon to cut costs.
Especially when it comes to CEOs. I have worked at companies where the CEOs literally offered nothing but the skill of being friends with other CEOs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I replace a crew of ten ditch diggers with one guy and an excavator, I have replaced lower-value human capital with higher-value mechanical capital for that task. Does the replacement enrage you in that case, or just the phrasing? Should we be using spoons instead of excavators, and abacuses instead of computers, in order to maintain a high value on human capital?
Do you view yourself as lower-value human capital? Why or why not?
Obviously a stupid thing for a leader to say about his own employees but I think getting emotionally upset about this statement is also pretty silly. Having employees represents deployed capital. Some of that "human capital" is lower value than others. Obviously AI will replace the lowest segments first. Call it heartless or accurate, you're correct either way, but these are not words that cut deep into the heart of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you view yourself as lower-value human capital? Why or why not?
I am far lower-value capital for tasks like digging ditches, moving things from point to point and proof reading documents than available non-human capital. Now non-human capital out performs me on many more tasks than a few years ago. I don't like it, but don't find it helpful to deny.
It's incredibly easy to make these arguments about how it's good to replace humans until it comes around to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Even if AI can automate certain tasks, language like this completely destroys team morale and trust. " That's what the parent commented on and that was my response.
Saying ‘banks exist to make money’ in response to criticism of dehumanizing language is like responding to criticism of factory pollution with ‘factories make products.’ Yes. That’s the premise...
Calling employees 'lower-value human capital' reveals a lot about a company's internal culture, regardless of the PR walkback. Even if AI can automate certain tasks, language like this completely destroys team morale and trust. Good leaders should view automation as a tool to empower their team, not just a weapon to cut costs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and no. The company is a bank - it's job is to take money and make money with that. I'm not surprised executive management is publicly saying they want to make investments in assets that will help their clients and they themselves make more money.
Where does it stop? Slavery would be fine if only it were legal? I mean that is the logical conclusion of a lot of business efficiency thinking. Business efficiency in a lot of ways is inhuman and against the spirit of "the collective tribe," which was originally about mutual wellbeing, not the ever more efficient extraction of resources to the benefit of the chosen few, although it was perverted that way at some poi…
It’s best just to view these organizations and the people who run them as immoral and sociopathic money printing machines. Expecting morality is just going to disappoint you.