Even the creepy business terminology "human capital" implies something that a business actively wants to grow. That is in stark contrast to how most businesses manage their people today.

I find "human capital" better than "human resources", as it has connotations of something valuable to be invested carefully as opposed to something simply to be consumed and discarded.

Of course, in the end it doesn't really matter, it is all Orwellian anyway.

Not entirely. Businesses don't try to grow things like buildings and inventory, they try to manage them at levels that make sense for their present and projected sales.

(So the same sort of mercenary treatment that employees get)

Inventory is part of working capital. Companies generally understand that they want to expand working capital.

Buildings are often leased and are therefore not capital at all.

Companies who pay attention to free cash flow will typically try to manage inventory and non-cash/equivalent working capital down, not up.

How do you improve your "return on capital"?

That's right - by keeping output constant (e.g. through automation) while reducing capital!

It didn't stop in the 70s. In many countries in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere, it's still common for businesses to retain employees over the arc of their career.

Certainly true, my comments are specific to the North American workplace.

Outside of government, this shift also coincides with the decline of pensions and the rise of the 401k.

Career growth has always been a shared responsibility between employees and employers. In white-collar fields--especially medicine and engineering--education has long been frontloaded, with formal schooling as the main on-ramp.

Blue-collar jobs, by contrast, have relied more on trade schools, mentorship, and hands-on training. These pathways have steadily eroded since the 1980s.

Much of this traces back to the Open Door Policy with China and the broader Free Trade Agreements that followed. These moved massive segments of industry offshore--along with the structures that once incentivized long-term employee development through education and skill-building.

Revitalizing domestic industry could reintroduce competition among employers, which in turn could restore the pre-1990s incentives for long-term investment in the workforce.

It's the same problem in the trades. Apprentices tend to cost the company more than their output so no one wants to hire and train them.

I would point to the emergence of Milton Friedman’s school of thought that the only thing a company should care for is delivering “shareholder value.”