There are very few phrases that I genuinely detest.
But “human capital” is one of them.
I saw it again this week in coverage of Bill Winters discussing AI and the future of work at Standard Chartered. In describing roles that may disappear, the phrase used was “lower value, human capital.”
Maybe it is technically correct in the language of economics. Maybe it is widely accepted in boardrooms, strategy papers, and shareholder reports.
But I still think it strips something important away from people.
“Capital” is an asset. A resource. Something to be allocated, optimised, reduced, or replaced when a more efficient option appears.
People are not that.
A person losing their job to automation is not simply a line-item efficiency gain.
It is someone worrying about their mortgage. Their children. Their confidence. Their identity. Their future.
And the effects rarely stop with the individual. Lay-offs ripple outward into families, communities, local businesses, and wider society.
What unsettles me further is the history attached to the term.
“Human capital” has roots reaching back centuries into economic discussions where human beings were explicitly treated as property and financial assets. (Research the 1781 Zong massacre)
Even if today’s usage is more abstract and less sinister, the language still carries echoes of reducing people to economic units.
At a time when organisations are racing toward AI, automation, algorithms, and ever-greater efficiency, the language we choose matters.
Because language shapes culture.
And cultures that speak about people as assets often become cultures that find it easier to discard them.
I am not anti-technology. AI will absolutely transform work, and in many cases it should. But if we are going to build the future of work, I hope we do it without forgetting the humanity of the people inside it.
Employees are not “human capital.”
They are humans.
BBC Article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98rqld1j3yo
