Older workers tend to get paid more. They are cutting costs. And one thing I've seen too often in technology is that older people, many of them, don't stay current. IBM is struggling to stay relevant. They need knowledgeable up to date employees.
Yes they do need knowledgeable and up to date employees and its not really a problem to get rid of some old codger that only writes / uses older tools when when newer standards and tools can do the job in a more reliable, efficient, or productive way. They don't automatically get those by hiring young people with no knowledge, experience, or ability to do what the older employer used to do.
IBM killed off their server business by staff layoffs, they killed off most of their materials and computer science research divisions at the same time, they killed off their desktop business, killed their laptop and workstation brands until Lenovo got it all for a steal. There is a point where cutting costs doesn't actually improve the health of the business it just limits themselves because they just fired a bunch of knowledgeable up to date employees so some rich greedy prick can live off the profits as the entire business declines. You can only trim the fat so often before you just start cutting into the muscle and bones of the company.
get those by hiring young people with no knowledge, experience, or ability to do what the older employer used to do even if they hire someone as a direct replacement.
Because that's not what they do if they are not retarded. They hire an experienced developer in the technical direction they want to go with experience in a tangential industry. You can find older people like that but they are rare. They are either incompetents that never bothered to maintain current skills or they moved off into management by time they are that old. You end up with someone probably between 40-45 years old with 20+ years experience often working with exactly what you want to move towards.
IBM hasn't done much right in recent history but it doesn't mean this in particular is a bad move.
view the rest of the comments →
speedisavirus ago
Older workers tend to get paid more. They are cutting costs. And one thing I've seen too often in technology is that older people, many of them, don't stay current. IBM is struggling to stay relevant. They need knowledgeable up to date employees.
Gamio ago
Yes they do need knowledgeable and up to date employees and its not really a problem to get rid of some old codger that only writes / uses older tools when when newer standards and tools can do the job in a more reliable, efficient, or productive way. They don't automatically get those by hiring young people with no knowledge, experience, or ability to do what the older employer used to do.
IBM killed off their server business by staff layoffs, they killed off most of their materials and computer science research divisions at the same time, they killed off their desktop business, killed their laptop and workstation brands until Lenovo got it all for a steal. There is a point where cutting costs doesn't actually improve the health of the business it just limits themselves because they just fired a bunch of knowledgeable up to date employees so some rich greedy prick can live off the profits as the entire business declines. You can only trim the fat so often before you just start cutting into the muscle and bones of the company.
speedisavirus ago
Because that's not what they do if they are not retarded. They hire an experienced developer in the technical direction they want to go with experience in a tangential industry. You can find older people like that but they are rare. They are either incompetents that never bothered to maintain current skills or they moved off into management by time they are that old. You end up with someone probably between 40-45 years old with 20+ years experience often working with exactly what you want to move towards.
IBM hasn't done much right in recent history but it doesn't mean this in particular is a bad move.