How IBM quietly pushed out 20,000 older workers [video] (opens in new tab)

Turns out, again, that management had zero plans for innovation. Instead, they only had the standard MBA plans : we're going to get a cheaper, MUCH worse, workforce. No more decisions to make for management, so they don't have to take the risk of being wrong anymore.

Innovation ... died. Bill Gates became the richest man in the world taking one of their more obvious opportunities. But managers looked good to other managers, you know, in ways they were taught in their MBA education, and only in those ways. IBM ... withered and died, in the opinion of a lot of people. IBM watson, their poster child for innovation, is not even a bad joke in the AI research community. It's actually unknown. It's an empty shell.

Today, even the financial community is saying stuff like IBM is like McDonalds ... it's a real estate play (you're essentially betting on their ability to sell-and-lease-back their real-estate portfolio and pay out the short term profits from that to their shareholders). There is much justification for that in their financial reports.

It's a bit wider than that: they own some things, and they're rent-seekers, who are to deep in debt and are finding they have to sell ever more income-generating assets. Every product they have, even the ones with deep market lock-in is declining fast.

Not advocating this, but don’t be miserable over a small sum of money. They’ll probably work with you on a repayment plan if necessary.

How much of this effect was IBM, how much was the economics of America at the time, and how much was specific to this one man is debatable. But he definitely appeared to live well, whatever it was.

Try working with some older people. My last corporate team -- one of the most senior and advanced in a major corporation, and carrying some of the most critical work -- was more than 50% "older developers".

Best team I worked on. Most competent. Least bullshit. "Get 'er done" -- and don't unduly fuck over the future while you're at it.

Meanwhile, another part of the corporation was busy off-shoring as much as they could to lower cost developers in India. You'd spend months in meetings and one-on-one training, and they still wouldn't get it. And these were -- a bit different than the norm -- direct employees, not contractors. Mostly in their 20's and 30's.

I'm not saying there aren't good, competent people in India -- or from India, or whatever.

I'm saying that these "employment transition" actions aren't about that. "Better" employees.

It's not the competence -- nor the flexibility and learning; my team was doing both all the time.

It's the money.

https://features.propublica.org/ibm/ibm-age-discrimination-a...

I'd suggest in addition planning financially for a sharp decline in income in your 50s and 60s.

One quote from the article:

> IBM [...] Targeted people for layoffs and firings with techniques that tilted against older workers, even when the company rated them high performers. In some instances, the money saved from the departures went toward hiring young replacements. [...] Told some older employees being laid off that their skills were out of date, but then brought them back as contract workers, often for the same work at lower pay and fewer benefits.

> Told some older employees being laid off that their skills were out of date, but then brought them back as contract workers, often for the same work at lower pay and fewer benefits.