Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Standard Chartered CEO walks back comment about 'lower-value human capital'

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 86 posts

Re: Standard Chartered CEO walks back comment about 'lower-value human capital'

#51

Post by bluefirebrand »

delichon wrote: post #29
kennywinker wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends, was ditch-digging a well paid job that people enjoyed? Did your business grow 10x and you offered excavator training for those 10 ditch-diggers to become machine operators?

Ditch digging is a crap paying job that most people hate, they just need it for food and stuff. After the mechanical resource arrived, I didn't need the other nine guys and just let them go, since I didn't suddenly get 10x the business. How does that change the calculation? Should I have kept paying them until I could find them work?

You don't have to keep paying them, but you probably shouldn't sneer down at them and call them "low value human capital" or whatever

Re: Standard Chartered CEO walks back comment about 'lower-value human capital'

#52

Post by RiverCrochet »

asdff wrote: post #18
mbesto wrote: post #8

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…

Slavery is actually legal. The 13th Amendment banning it has the explicit exception "except as punishment for a crime". Prison labor is used by a number of industries.

Re: Standard Chartered CEO walks back comment about 'lower-value human capital'

#53

Post by bluefirebrand »

erulabs wrote: post #11

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…

> I've worked for companies who have kind, sensitive, and inaccurate leadership

Being Kind and Sensitive does not exactly mean you're a bad leader or you can't build a successful business

You're grouping traits that aren't necessarily related

Re: Standard Chartered CEO walks back comment about 'lower-value human capital'

#54

Post by delichon »

catigula wrote: post #47
delichon wrote: post #23

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?

Baby's first Milton Friedman copy paste reductio ad absurdum. Why have any labor protections whatsoever? Are we to use horses instead of cars?

Yes, I agree with Friedman that excavators are better than spoons. Could you explain why that implies that I'm a baby who opposes all labor protections?

Re: Standard Chartered CEO walks back comment about 'lower-value human capital'

#55

Post by agentultra »

delichon wrote: post #23
stalfosknight wrote: post #4

That phrase "lower-value human capital" fills me with rage.

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?

People might think twice about digging a ditch if they had to do it with a shovel and hard labor. Might appreciate it more. Price a ditch accordingly.

Now we have more ditches than we need, the environmental damage from building the machines, extracting fuel, burning that fuel... never been cheaper to dig a ditch but who the hell needs one? Business shuts down, people lose jobs, the market re-adjusts... but the damage remains.

Capitalism isn't the end of economics. It's certainly not the most efficient means to ensure the needs of everyone are met and that the environment in which we depend is kept safe from destruction. Great at maximizing the production of ditches and paperclips though.

Although technology doesn't necessarily need to displace labor. We didn't invent compilers and stop hiring and training programmers. We hired more programmers. We invented better compilers and new programming languages.

The language that AI folks are using and the choices and policies they support show that they're not philanthropists or even interested in capitalism. They're trying to monopolize their businesses and remove competition. They don't see the value in labor and innovation and competition.

Re: Standard Chartered CEO walks back comment about 'lower-value human capital'

#56

Post by Henchman21 »

mbesto wrote: post #8
etgpao wrote: post #2

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.

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.

Why is it that the C-suites, etc., have so much fucking zeal for hurting normal people? Why is it that these folks are champing at the bit for layoffs? Why do they refer to people as "human resources" or almost unimaginably worse "lower-value human capital"?

And why, why sir, do you enjoy the taste of boot so much?

Re: Standard Chartered CEO walks back comment about 'lower-value human capital'

#57

Post by Henchman21 »

rambojohnson wrote: post #31
rglover wrote: post #26

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?

Do you realize the level of sociopathy it takes to become CEO at certain companies?

Why do we continue to allow sociopaths and psychopaths to run everything?

Re: Standard Chartered CEO walks back comment about 'lower-value human capital'

#58

Post by delichon »

fzeroracer wrote: post #37
delichon wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I didn't ask if you were lower capital for digging ditches or moving things. I was asking if you were low value for your current job or not. Why shouldn't you be replaced? It's incredibly easy to make these arguments about how it's good to replace humans until it comes around to you.

It's incredibly easy to presume hypocrisy to avoid engaging with an argument. Yes, I was let go and replaced with nobody, and they now use AI much more heavily. One year ago next week. How does that change the arugment? If that's a hard question it may be easier to presume that I'm lying.

Re: Standard Chartered CEO walks back comment about 'lower-value human capital'

#59

Post by slater »

Henchman21 wrote: post #56
mbesto wrote: post #8

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.

Why is it that the C-suites, etc., have so much fucking zeal for hurting normal people? Why is it that these folks are champing at the bit for layoffs? Why do they refer to people as "human resources" or almost unimaginably worse "lower-value human capital"? And why, why sir, do you enjoy the taste of boot so much?

Because they live in a different world.

Re: Standard Chartered CEO walks back comment about 'lower-value human capital'

#60

Post by Henchman21 »

delichon wrote: post #23
stalfosknight wrote: post #4

That phrase "lower-value human capital" fills me with rage.

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?

You've put 9 people out of work so you can make more money. I think we should send those 9 hungry people round your place for an explanation. Why do you deserve more than anyone else?

It isn't necessarily the language that is the problem, its your transparent motives that place you above others.

Post reply on HN