What would be IBM’s incentive be for firing old people if they are good at a job that is needed?
There is certainly bias but it is towards business. Ibm is not rosy today as it was 20 years ago. It’s struggling to stay alive (profitable).
When people get comfortable, they do the same job well and nothing more. I see this at microsoft too. What do you say to someone who has been a systems security specialist for 30 years? That systems is probably mainframes which are slowly being replaced by the cloud run from commodity hardware. What should IBM do to compete when its workforce has 20-30 years of experience in yesterday’s technology?
Looking at IBM’s technology. It’s antiquated. They can’t compete in any area except for areas where no one wants to enter.
We say IBM is evil for what it’s doing. I see it as IBM struggling trying to stay alive. 20 years ago, technology was slow. IBM was able to retrain its workforce. Today, it can’t do this fast enough.
This is most unfortunate. I feel for those people. As a society, we should look after them and this is why I am for social welfare programs.
If you force IBM’s hands, it won’t last long enough to even keep the rest employed.
What we should learn from this is.... there is a sad nature of life. The world changes. We either change or get left behind.
I see the same at msft. The remaining old people have reinvented themselves many times. Going from swe to pm to data scientist to machine learning...
Instead of “down with ibm” we should take this as a learning lesson.
We see this on blind, too. This is the circle of life. For our field, i am an old head. IBM had its glory days.... microsoft had its glory days. Today everything is google and facebook.
How can microsoft catch up when the world is in the cloud and msft has a huge workforce doing win32? That’s the layoff rounds.
We will see what happens to facebook and google in 30 years when the cloud is a 3 generation old technology.
Easy. They fire old people (even when good at their job) and instead hire younger people or folks in India, both of which are cheaper. You’d have to be blind not to see this.
I see this. It is business. Why do they do this? It’s good for their bottom line.
You have to be blind not to see that this is a fact of life. They can get 90% of the work done for 10% of the money. What would you do if you’re running the show and the company is bleeding cash? IBM has had negative cashflow for a long time until recently.
You force IBM to keep these people they will go bk in due time. Times change. This is no different than coal miners. Move on. Time fucks everyone. Your best bet is get some lube and play along.
I worked at IBM few years ago and used to work with bunch of old folks. I was 25 and my team mate was 67, returning as a contractor after retirement. They have too many old technologies being used internally and too many old folks. If I were Ginnie, I’d fire old folks and hire some fresh brains for sure. Their products aren’t so competitive in today’s market.
No one cuts people simply because of age. However, if you’re 50 and no better than a 20 year old that can get paid less why should the business want to keep you. Not saying real life is this extreme but I hope you see my point.
Cutting people based on age is exactly what is going on here. No company is going to outright document "let's get rid of anyone over 50 (except for us executives)." It's going to be hidden in twists of language they think they can outsmart others with. If someone "borrowed" your car and "forgot" to return it, when they defend themselves in court for GTA would you be happy if the judge decided to let them off because "they said the were only borrowing it, so I cannot say they intended to steal the car they kept for 6 months"?
I’m confused. It looks like IBM was looking to cut fat, and went after the largest offenders (those that make the most money). Are companies no longer allowed to address budgeting issues without because accused of X?
If said company is making actual money and growing revenue based on products the younger crowd is developing, then sure. But when those products are just meh, and the only solution is to 'Agile' because everyone that knows how to actually engineer software has been cut...then yeah, accuse away. Shareholders should actually be upset by this rather than thinking about a short-term bump.
Cutting 'Old Heads' at IBM 
comments
This comment was deleted by original commenter.
There is certainly bias but it is towards business. Ibm is not rosy today as it was 20 years ago. It’s struggling to stay alive (profitable).
When people get comfortable, they do the same job well and nothing more. I see this at microsoft too. What do you say to someone who has been a systems security specialist for 30 years? That systems is probably mainframes which are slowly being replaced by the cloud run from commodity hardware. What should IBM do to compete when its workforce has 20-30 years of experience in yesterday’s technology?
Looking at IBM’s technology. It’s antiquated. They can’t compete in any area except for areas where no one wants to enter.
We say IBM is evil for what it’s doing. I see it as IBM struggling trying to stay alive. 20 years ago, technology was slow. IBM was able to retrain its workforce. Today, it can’t do this fast enough.
This is most unfortunate. I feel for those people. As a society, we should look after them and this is why I am for social welfare programs.
If you force IBM’s hands, it won’t last long enough to even keep the rest employed.
What we should learn from this is.... there is a sad nature of life. The world changes. We either change or get left behind.
I see the same at msft. The remaining old people have reinvented themselves many times. Going from swe to pm to data scientist to machine learning...
Instead of “down with ibm” we should take this as a learning lesson.
We see this on blind, too. This is the circle of life. For our field, i am an old head. IBM had its glory days.... microsoft had its glory days. Today everything is google and facebook.
How can microsoft catch up when the world is in the cloud and msft has a huge workforce doing win32? That’s the layoff rounds.
We will see what happens to facebook and google in 30 years when the cloud is a 3 generation old technology.
It’s good for their bottom line.
You have to be blind not to see that this is a fact of life. They can get 90% of the work done for 10% of the money. What would you do if you’re running the show and the company is bleeding cash? IBM has had negative cashflow for a long time until recently.
You force IBM to keep these people they will go bk in due time. Times change. This is no different than coal miners. Move on. Time fucks everyone. Your best bet is get some lube and play along.
These oldies cost too much in $/unit work so it’s not beneficial for ibm to keep them