HI version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
64% Positive
Analyzed from 1784 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#capital#value#human#more#business#why#labor#lower#company#where
Discussion (60 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
That's what the parent commented on and that was my response.
Yes. Numerous corporations use outsourced slave labor in places where it is legal, or where bribery makes it easy to look the other way. Many of the rare earth elements in your electronics were mined and the devices assembled by slave labor. Agricultural companies United Fruit Company and Nestle are notorious for teaming up with local criminal groups and kidnapping locals in various countries and running slave labor camps.
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.
And why, why sir, do you enjoy the taste of boot so much?
Reminds me of a much smaller scale event at my job recently. A manager who was not liked lost all their staff from their small department and is now stuck with all the work until those positions are filled.
They should, but they don't.
Use and abuse is lawful and expected.
They just pretend most of the time they don't and we also pretend that we believe them most of the time.
Maybe it is about time we stop with all those pretend pleasantries and face the reality: when mega finance CEOs talk about our glorious UBI feature, they are not planning an idilic post-work world that looks like a Jehova's witness book illustration where we all spend our days writing poetry, painting and making music, they are planning something more like Soylent Green.
Or even just Children of Men.
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?
I'm wondering what it is going to take to get them to pay attention.
Should we be using spoons instead of excavators, and abacuses instead of computers, in order to maintain a high value on human capital?
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.
Neither. It's the inhuman attitude that people have little inherent value that enrages me.
Why have any labor protections whatsoever? Are we to use horses instead of cars?
It isn't necessarily the language that is the problem, its your transparent motives that place you above others.
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 heads of banks - its more or less their entire job to be heartless and accurate.
I've worked for companies who have kind, sensitive, and inaccurate leadership. The result was everyone was out of a job, rather than just the low performers. Pick your poison.
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.
A nuclear bomb and Jesus Christ are both resources and capital. The denotation is not demeaning.
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