I'm slightly sad this comment is being downvoted. I can see why someone would, as especially wrt IBM, there's a decent history/precedent for their being aggressively ageist, and it's a topic on which we certainly don't want to pass over without a hard look. (Full disclosure, I tend to side on the "more worker protections" team, but I want to try and take the parent in good faith and think it's a point worth considering)

That being said, I don't think the OP's comment is something we should ignore, that ageism can appear as an emergent symptom of simply culling an aging workforce.

Here's my napkin math for this scenario, and I'm admittedly playing devils advocate here: You hire 10 new people every year. Every year, every employee has a 1% chance of going "stale". You don't fire every year, or at least, don't fire aggressively. If push comes to shove, when you do fire, you try to clean house. Wouldn't you naturally find the highest % of firings in the older brackets?

Anyway, I have no particular reason to think this is true, I just think it's not so unreasonable a point to make that it should be downvoted in terms of argued. I've specifically seen both cases, older higher payed workers culled on-whole in indefensible fashion, removing domain expertise and powerhouses. I've also seen employees start phoning it in, and for there to be a meaningful epsilon of time before anyone catches on.

To be very clear; I'm personally convinced IBM crossed some lines, given the evidence. However, I can see situations where there's enough ambiguity that I don't want to shut down people asking those questions.