Shareholder shell game math
Can anyone explain how claiming to be hiring 25,000 people while you are laying off 14,000 people makes sense?
The Lie of course is that they are getting rid of people with old skills and bringing in new talent. But that's not how things work at IBM. Most people have current skills and are enabled and required with all sorts of motivations to maintain current skills and develop new ones constantly.
At the same time, a lot of new hires with current skills are included in those laid off. How does this math make more sense than to instead just not hire those 25,000 people? Wouldn't that save even more money and offset those asset sales too?
But wait, if the 25,000 is really a Lie (and it is), and you need to cut 14,000 heads to make things add up, then you really do have to lay people off. The real number of open jobs is closer to 8,000, which means even if those were dropped you would still need to lay off 6,000 to balance the books. Well 6,000 at that 70K average you mention. What if instead they laid off the people that caused the problem(those counting the revenues others generate), not people that actually work. How many of those people would need to get laid off? 6K x 70K = $420,000,000
That would be about 600 managers and 200 executives and 1 CEO. 801 people vs. 14,000, all the while the customers would be much happier if this is how things were done. Would it matter to the shareholders if the dividend remained the same and the customers and employees were happier? Are the shareholders sadistic and go for laying off as many people as humanly possible instead of removing those who actually don't produce anything or give customers service? Yeah, put that on your scale.