🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec30.220640.6179@cbfsb.cb.att.com> rizzo@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (anthony.r.rizzo) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.091508@roper.mc.ti.com> a722756@roper.mc.ti.com (W. Donald Rolph) writes:
>Of course you may.  In fact, I would agree with you.
>That's exactly the way that many managers treat employees, hence
>the terms head count, and human capital.  HUMAN CAPITAL?  Just
>SEEING those words makes me furious.  This is one term that I find

	No doubt the phrase "human capital" was conjured up in part as
	a conscience tranquilizer to be taken whenever doing layoffs, 
	especially around Christmas.  After all, it has to be pretty hard
	to sleep at night eg when you're Lee Iacocca (sp?) making $20M a
	year and ordering hundreds of $40K a year "worker bees" to take
	a lay off.

	My major beef about the business world is the personal belief I
	hold that much of executive level management is compensated beyond
	the real demands of their positions.  Only in America, I suppose, do
	execs even in non profits make $600K+ per year, even in years when
	the corporation operates in the red.  Sigh.  Of course, the salaries
	paid are comparatively a drop in the bucket, but I suspect they cause
	far more incidental damage, eg in morale, than society or TPTB
	acknowledge.

>Tony Rizzo

					Rick Spanbauer, SUNY/Stony Brook