Wednesday, February 16, 2011

'Living Labour' or 'Human Capital'?

As I was walking through Observatory last night on my way back from Rondebosch, I happened to look up at a sign I had seen numerous times before: it was an advertisement for the company that resided there, called 'CallStaff'. I had seen the name before and assumed it must be a temp agency, so I hadn't bothered too much with on the previous occasions that I had walked by. But last night I chanced to read (and process) the entire sign. At the bottom of the sign it said something to the effect of 'Temporary, Contract, and Permanent Labour Solutions', but right above that it said 'Human Capital Management'.

Human capital? I've heard of 'living labour' (as Marx termed it), but human capital? Isn't capital simply a broad term for financial assets, such as 'investment capital' is the amount of (surplus) financial assets that one has to re-invest? If that is the case, isn't it rather absurd to say that humans are 'owned'? (I mean, one could give the case that they are, at the very least, treated as such. But doesn't just coming out and saying it like that seem a bit brash?)

So I hired the help of dictionary.com, which provided me with the answer:

capital:

4. the wealth, whether in money or property owned or employed in business by an individual firm, corporation, etc.

5. an accumulated stock of such wealth.

6. any form of wealth employed or capable of being employed in the production of more wealth.

On the surface of it, it is perhaps a case of splitting hairs, when you hire someone to work for you, it seems a bit impertinent to say that you own them or that they are your property (at least, one would like to think this, though the reality of the situation is that one would likely not be surprised to see employees treated in such a way). But what is more interesting is definition #6. What is 'wealth'? Mostly we would think of wealth in terms of riches or abundance of something, or at least some sort of property, but Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations might lead us to be a bit suspicious of these general 'un-economic' ideas of wealth. So, dictionary.com again.

wealth:

3.a. all things that have a monetary or exchange value.
b. anything that has utility and is capable of being appropriated or exchanged


Ahhh! So now we have our answer. 'Human capital' is 'human wealth' (i.e. beings that can be utilized) capable of being employed in the production of more wealth.

Should we really be surprised, though? From my observations, the growing trend is that employees are facing greater and greater dehumanization for the sake of expanding the coffers of the rich elite. And yes, one may accuse me of being on a bit of a 'Marxist streak' after recent events in terms of completing my thesis. However, the main problem I have is when companies like 'CallStaff' are allowed to openly undermine human dignity by advertising themselves as a company that basically treats people like game pieces.

Or maybe that's not such a bad thing. Maybe it means that eventually people will be pushed to the limit and be forced to respond.

Any takers for the slogan 'Human Livestock Available! Rock Bottom Prices!'?

No comments:

Post a Comment