Hacker News Reader

Comment by Yaa101 | Hacker News Reader

The problem starts with the name, humans are not resources. Stones. metals and food are resources. It's a slave term to see people as resources. I will never contract myself to those companies and people.

View on HN

Merriam Webster definition of resource:

  1a : a source of supply or support : an available means —usually used in plural 
  1b : a natural source of wealth or revenue —often used in plural
  1c : a natural feature or phenomenon that enhances the quality of human life
  1d : computable wealth —usually used in plural
  1e : a source of information or expertise
  2 : something to which one has recourse in difficulty : EXPEDIENT
  3 : a possibility of relief or recovery
  4 : a means of spending one's leisure time
  5 : an ability to meet and handle a situation : RESOURCEFULNESS

I'd say humans are resources under definitions 1a, 1e and 2. Those things aren't particular to slaves.

You must harvest more Software Engineers.

We take a lot of Vespian Gas

Spawn more overlords.

You must construct additional cubicles!

It may be a valid use of the word resource, but it's still dehumanizing to think of people as resources.

It isn't dehumanizing to consider someone "a source of information or expertise". It's humanizing in that those are predominantly human things. And that's one of the primary senses of the word. It seems uncharitable to assume someone must mean some other sense.

The meaning of a word is much more than its definition in a dictionary. Context matters. Humans are animals, yet saying that someone is an animal might mean anything from praise (You're killing it, you animal!) to contempt (Stop behaving like an animal!).

Suppose I call you an ape. It's literally true, isn't it? Yet you would naturally assume I meant it in a dehumanizing way.

Yes we are. We are hired by a company to use ours skills and time to complete a task or set of tasks. Depending on when they want a project done and what skills are required, they must hire/buy accordingly.

I personally find this a very comfortable arrangement. I am a merchant of my own labour. I can upgrade the value of my labour by adding skills (in the same way that a merchant of stone could get a better price by reducing defects). I can seek a better price. I am free to terminate the arrangement when it suits me.

This is indeed the way companies treat us, just don't forget that they work to devalue those things much more than you work to increase their value.

And another thing, you are not free to terminate the arrangement because you need money to live, the company is indeed free to terminate it.

I actually like the name "human resources" because it very honestly describes the way humans are seen by large corporations: not much more than interchangeable resource units. Changing to a more comforting name while keeping everything else constant is awfully typical of superficial modern day activism.

Under your philosophy, how do you manage who should work on a project, how many people should work on a project, whether you need to hire more people and how long something will take?

Edit: I notice this person's account posted once 32 days ago, then 44 days ago, then 51 days ago ... I don't expect a response anymore.

Direct supervisor of team, Head of team (C-level), Metrics or Organizational number of desired projects, Estimation?

HR don't decide any of those things, they're instructed to do those things by management.

> I will never contract myself to those companies and people.

I read that as them saying they'll never work for a company that treats people as 'resources'.

A few companies I have been in have recognised this PR mistake and have renamed themselves "People and Culture". However, do not be fooled, the purpose remains ensuring the organisation has the right type of people and a culture that aligns with the objectives of the company.

Freudian slip.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com