IBM today is mostly a service provider - with those in the 50+ age bracket being "kicked out" there will be at least 2 groups:

(1)The ones with skills "to keep the lights on" for these services - those will be hired back as "consultants" - let's hope at twice the daily rate they worked before if they want to continue to work.

(2) The others - for them, the tax payers will pick up some of the balance, but generally, it will be dire for them to find new ways to continue.

Overall, age discrimination is a topic on which most companies and the public are mostly in denial while trying to please everybody else or demonstrate how inclusive they are.

Within many industries you will be excluded "quietly" during the selection for up to mid-level jobs when you are 50+ - quietly, because companies know that such discrimination openly could result in reputational or potential legal challenges.

On exec jobs, it is even more ludicrous - people who are much older than the candidates, block (competent) 50+ candidates based on their age to become their peers.

At the same time, often these companies also do not promote staff above a certain age e.g. when taking on new responsibilities that gets all others promoted (aka substantial pay rise / cost). As a result, while in a few countries here in Europe, 50+ workforce will have more holidays or pension contributions, the salaries of 50+ high achievers might be lower than younger staff in comparable roles. Give the above, some swallow that pill, but those that can afford leave (independent of age the old saying: good people leave, wood stays). Might not apply to most of the 50+ workforce, others might just have better employment contracts (historically), e.g. in the German car factories you have people on payroll with the company, some as contractors through 3rd party, and at the end of the food chain some with a low paid contract for work and labour with a body shop - all doing the same work at very different pay for the workers. In such setups, getting rid of the older workers might result in a higher bonus for top management, achieving KPIs for middle management, and certainly in high consultancy fees for restructuring advice from McKinsey e.a at daily rates per (senior) consultant at about the monthly salary of the worker made redundant - after these "cost" making younger or older workforce redundant becomes a marginal difference.

Overall, from what I've seen, where competence is key and valued, age and other things will not be used to discriminate the best candidates or staff. I've seen 70+ old engineers being hired by top-names for their knowledge, experience and achievements.

With aging societies in many western countries, TMK, in about 5 years the majority of the workforce will be 50+ in most of them.

In the west, during the last 40 years we have shifted from "engineering pride" to prioritising financial markets vs innovations & products. This has certainly created many activities, tasks /jobs particularly in large orgs, that will become "redundant" when the music stops or when some of these orgs fade away due to lack of product, market, leadership or competencies.

We need to look into how our "established" companies stay or become competitive and innovative again with their products and services in a global environment short / mid and long term vs. making most of their money on financial markets. Such companies don't need to care about the age of their staff - they care about skills and competencies.

With the baby boomers leaving the job market, low-birth groups / demographic change of those entering the job market plus technology advances there is now a chance that this puts pressure on companies (and employees) to re-invent themselves.