7 ms·

If the goal is to save money, isn’t it reasonable to axe the most senior people which are probably also paid more than junior ones? And I’m not saying it’s a sm

If the goal is to save money, isn’t it reasonable to axe the most senior people which are probably also paid more than junior ones? And I’m not saying it’s a smart strategy, it’s probably idiotic. Just saying it’s not really ageist.

whatshisface 2y ago
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.
- manuelmoreale 2y ago
  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.
- manuelmoreale 2y ago
  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.
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    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.
groby_b 2y ago
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.
- manuelmoreale 2y ago
  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.
  - gtirloni 2y ago
    I think your argument is reasonable. Having done two tours at IBM, they only see numbers (and not productivity ones).
  - groby_b 2y ago
    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.
    - manuelmoreale 2y ago
      > 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.
bankcust08385 2y ago
That's how Google Cloud did it.
droptablemain 2y ago
Perhaps not in principal, but in practical terms it ends up being "ageist."
- manuelmoreale 2y ago
  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.
  - gtirloni 2y ago
    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).

whatshisface 2y ago

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.

manuelmoreale 2y ago
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.
manuelmoreale 2y ago
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.
- whatshisface 2y ago
  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.

groby_b 2y ago

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.

manuelmoreale 2y ago
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.
- gtirloni 2y ago
  I think your argument is reasonable. Having done two tours at IBM, they only see numbers (and not productivity ones).
- groby_b 2y ago
  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.
  - manuelmoreale 2y ago
    > 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.

bankcust08385 2y ago

That's how Google Cloud did it.

droptablemain 2y ago

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

manuelmoreale 2y ago
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.
- gtirloni 2y ago
  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).