human resource an asset or an expense
Debate Rounds (3)
Taking human resource as the potential contribution of an individual employee, it is the same calculation. Their pay or cost is an expense: their contributions are and asset. Overall it is the difference between the two that renders them an asset or an expense.
If a salesman is paid $50.00 per hour ( when all costs such as benefits are figured) but he generates a million dollars per hour in sales, then he is an asset.
Or in sports, a quarterback may make a lot of money, but his performance determines if he is an asset or an expense.
Therefore cost is an expense. Performance generates revenue. The difference is an asset if positive, and an overall expense if negative.
ayushikathuria forfeited this round.
You "think" you are an asset, and maybe you are. In fact I hope that you are. But do you "think" you are an asset because you "feel" that you are? Or is there a performance item which proves the point. Have you invented something great or grown the company?
I have worked for a number of companies, and would periodically and independently assess my asset / liability to my employer. It was often quite a revelation. Know too that others in the company will make the same assessment of you.
Again I restate "Anything or anybody can be an asset or a liability. Do you give more than you get? RU and asset or a liability? So human resource can be either."
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Right off the bat, Pro ff'd. Spelling and Grammar: Pro had terrible spelling... "i think i m assest b'coz i can invent anything as well as i will help..." Con maintained proper English. Neither side had sources. Arguments: Con did argue the point, as much as just discuss what the Resolution meant and how to answer it... But he didn't directly answer it. Pro, however, didn't even refer to the Resolution, but instead talked about how he is an asset. Con still refuted Pro's only claim, and indirectly answered the resolution by saying that it depends on how much you give back, and partially based on opinion.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate