71–80 of 86 posts
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.
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…
Humans employees are neither resources, nor capital.
A nuclear bomb and Jesus Christ are both resources and capital. The denotation is not demeaning.
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…
This is the kind of thinking that has resulted in an economy where losses are socialized and gains are privatized. There is strategic business value in managing your company in a way that doesn't contribute to the collapse of the middle class.
Socializing losses is definitionally a byproduct of government action, not of a private business.
> There is strategic business value in managing your company in a way that doesn't contribute to the collapse of the middle class.
I genuinely don't know what this means, and I'm not trying to be snarky. People, and Americans in particular, are considerably more wealthy today than they were in some imagined golden age of the middle class. If you want to keep your capital in a bank that is out for some imagined social restructuring, by all means go ahead, but I do not think a compelling banking product that will make.
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…
"But it's true" is nonsensical as evidence for "it's silly to get upset about", unless one is a psychopath by the common definition.
If you think anyone who employs people is a psychopath and deserves ire, you're more or less condemning capitalism itself. If that's the case, well then my defense of the banking CEO is strongly justified and I'll sleep well at night knowing _at least some jobs exist_ because of capital allocators who can make tough decisions.
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?
There's no need for insults. Have you considered that "the boot" in this case is the structure of market capitalism itself and that this structure has benefited humanity immeasurably? It could be argued heartless bankers have done more to reduce human suffering than any other group of people to have ever lived. If bootlicking means "maybe its not so bad that humanity allocates resources rationally instead of based on some arbitrary sense of fairness" than show me the boot and I'll lick. At least this boot generates excess grain and beef.
All that said, of course it was highly stupid to say this in a place that would be heard be people outside the capital allocation system and whose feelings would be hurt by the unfuzzy truth that banks exist to make money.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do we continue to allow sociopaths and psychopaths to run everything ?
Because there's a severe lack of education (in the school sense) on personality disorders. I was in a relative hell for nearly a decade until I learned about the Cluster B spectrum of disorders. Once I had an answer to "what the hell was that all about," everything changed.
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.
Still, a responsible CEO would resign after such a blunder because he has become a liability for business.