The cost/productivity balance is supposed to have been considered for hiring and promotion; when a layoff predominately targets a specific division or pay level it means the strategy leading up to that point had been wrong.

Oh I’m not arguing against that. And as I said, I don’t think it’s a smart way of running things. I’m just saying that it may not be an age thing but simply a money thing. That’s all.

Have another thoughts re-reading your comment this morning.

> when a layoff predominately targets a specific division or pay level it means the strategy leading up to that point had been wrong.

This is fair but isn’t also this what we want? Like if you run a company, if you realize that mistakes were made, isn’t it reasonable to expect a correction? And by “what we want” I mean the admitting a mistake and correcting it.

It means that there's not a "most natural" level for layoffs, because the center line that layoffs indicate deviation from has all the pay levels in balance. Reducing staff at high pay levels doesn't a priori make the best trade.

Perhaps not in principal, but in practical terms it ends up being "ageist."

I’ll say this again because people are downvoting as if I’m trying to defend this practice: I think it’s stupid.

Now, what I’m pushing against is this idea that it is “ageist”. I’m no native speaker but ageist is defined as

> a bias against individuals and groups based on their age

Now if I decide to fire everyone who’s making more than 500k at a company and it just so happens that those people are all above a certain age I don’t think that’s ageist. It’s certainly stupid and I think I made it clear. It’s a money driven decision, which is also stupid.

I just think it’s important of accuse people of the right thing if you want to accuse them of something. That’s all I’m saying.

But again, the fuck do I know. I don’t work in corporate, don’t play the stupid ladder game, will never get a promotion. I’m just here sharing a random thought on the bizarre business world you people live in.

In most of these corporations, the people making the most are older.

They don't have a habit of hiring young rockstars with insane salaries (because these people wouldn't fit the culture).

That's how Google Cloud did it.

Yeah, it is, unless you can make the case that IBM doesn't need all those leaders any more.

What will happen is that they rehire, and rehire young.

Oh I’m sure they’ll end up hiring again. And I’m also sure C-suite comps won’t go down. I just don’t think it’s a crusade against old people. It’s just that old people have more experience and demand higher pay. But I mean, if one wants to argue that it’s ageist to fire them then I can make the same stupid argument that it’s ageist for them to be paid more than younger people.

And it’s clearly a stupid argument because there are other factors and not just age.

I think your argument is reasonable. Having done two tours at IBM, they only see numbers (and not productivity ones).

If younger people in the same position were paid less, yes, that would be ageist. Nobody's arguing against that.

But, as you said, C-suite comps won't go down. Neither do VP comps. But the people rehired, oddly, are all younger. And that is ageist.

Not if they axe the position. Neither if it's in a single instance. But if, at scale, older people are fired, younger people are rehired, and comp doesn't change significantly - yeah, sorry, that's ageist.

There's a reason many companies instead offer folks a juicy "if you leave, have a chunk of money" package - they do want younger people for one reason or another (and I don't think it's fundamentally wrong to want a change) and this a way to do this in a way that does not discriminate.

IBM's leaning hard into being an asshole instead. There's a reason they've had reams of discrimination lawsuits. Significantly more than comparable companies. Let's not make excuses for them, they have lawyers for that.

> But the people rehired, oddly, are all younger. And that is ageist.

Is it though? Or is it just that younger people are just cheaper to hire? It’s the same reasoning in reverse. Older people with more experience demand a higher pay. And if you’re motivated—again, wrongly—just by money you probably will end up hiring younger. Because it’s cheaper.

And again, I think it’s dumb. Just not ageist. It’s probably greed which is not uncommon in the business world.

Again, as I said in my message: Pay for position stays the same, independent of age. Firing is disproportionately old people who get replaced with young people at the same pay

That's the issue.

Does pay stay the same? Genuinely asking. Like is someone with 15 years of experience not getting paid more than someone with 1, even if hired for the same position? And we can obviously argue how that’s even possible but that’s a separate issue altogether.

I mean, that's the same as saying "are elves paid the same? We can obviously argue how that's even possible, but that's a separate issue altogether"

It's a nonsensical hypothetical.