

Programmers are not 'resources' [comic] - kranner
http://blog.codeboff.in/2010/07/13/programmers-and-recruiters-are-from-different-planets-2/

======
borisk
1st slide ruins the surprise.

~~~
kranner
I made this comic.

There had been no explanatory panel in the first version but I discovered
after a bit of 'user testing' that unfortunately the joke carried over in the
real world; a lot of people didn't know who Stroustrup was.

~~~
stralep
Maybe the 1st panel should be the last.

~~~
ugh
Definitely. That’s how comics with jokes like that are usually organized. SMBC
does that quite often: [http://www.smbc-
comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1911#c...](http://www.smbc-
comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1911#comic)

------
lionhearted
It's just a disconnect in cultures - when an old school businessperson uses
the term "human resources", they don't actually mean it in a negative,
malicious, or callous way. The term partially started out that way during war
planning - "our natural resources and our human resources to fight the war" -
but it evolved to get a positive meaning to it in the 50's and 60's. Positive
psychologists would talk about how "natural resources are wasted by using them
up, but human resources are wasted by not using them", and it became a
pleasant term.

Think about it - almost all personnel departments are called HR for a reason;
it used to have very positive connotations. The term kind of devolved as the
modern corporate culture grew, and it's kind of an anachronism that a young
businessman is more careful of using. I'd guess the term will completely leave
usage in the next 20-40 years.

Its usage when it grew in popularity was generally understood to be a positive
thing - something similar to what happened to the word "welfare", which used
to have overwhelmingly positive connotations as "the welfare of the people."
Now welfare is out, social safety net is in. Likewise, human resources is
gradually being replaced; actually, the main reason it's hanging around is
probably because there isn't a really clear alternative term for "all
organizationally-yet-not-operationally-focused personnel decisions."

~~~
masklinn
> It's just a disconnect in cultures - when an old school businessperson uses
> the term "human resources", they don't actually mean it in a negative,
> malicious, or callous way.

Oh absolutely not, they don't mean anything bad by handling people as they
handle objects. They just don't give a damn.

Is that supposed to make those considered objects happy?

I will note that, in my experience, the only people to ever defend calling
people "resources" are managers.

> Now welfare is out

How? Where? Apart from fox news, I haven't seen welfare as being "out".

