[qntty]

I suggest you read the article linked in another comment. It doesn't seem to be true that they were just getting rid of people with outdated skills. They were getting rid of people with relevant skills who also happened to be old.

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 Told some older employees being laid off that their skills were out of date, but then brought them back as contract workers, often for the same work at lower pay and fewer benefits.

[jbob2000]

I did read the article. I think my point still stands. It's possible to be overpaid, I see it in my company all the time. You can fire someone from one job and hire them for a job with a smaller scope, it happens all the time. It's not ageism, it's just a business going through changes.

[existencebox]

Somewhat meta-comment:

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.

[qntty]

Maybe people don't like the idea of living in a world where someone can be asked by an employer to spend years developing specialized skills then be so easily thrown out onto a job market where those skills are useless?

[existencebox]

Right, and I'd agree with that sentiment. I didn't get the sense the OP was even necessarily arguing about addressing that, but was simply expressing his own expectations within the system as it exists today. (As someone who would advocate your more progressive argument, I necessarily have to acknowledge the shortcomings in modern employment that would beg such unfortunately pragmatic preparations/thought experiments)

Maybe this is being pedantic, but I'd split this into two discussions. Might there not be reasonable and justafiable firings that may skew older? And secondly, Should we have other systems in play such that the former isn't such a life-shaking event?

Edit: Another note, but I find myself additionally sad after reading your post, because while I'd like it to be true that "most people don't like the idea ...", the last N years of labor/union/corporate/antitrust legislation (or lack thereof, especially post-gig-economy) don't lend confidence towards that. This is yet another reason I think there's merit towards contemplating the nature of the systems in place currently, and what "smells"/emergent patterns those systems have.