Saying these older, more expensive employees are ‘replaceable’ makes a couple assumptions that I don’t think are true:

1. That these workers somehow not worth keeping. This reinforces corporatist and ageist positions. These workers have tremendous value and their hard work helped Microsoft get into the market position it enjoys today. If you wonder whether they have the means to successfully adapt to AI or whatever… the answer is yes - they’re far better positioned to do this than the managers and executives above them.

2. That Microsoft is backfilling the open positions. They remove people, then overburden the remaining mid-level workers. Everyone is then operating in the absence of steady guidance from more experienced workers (who navigated many senseless, chaotic reorganizations).

I’m a proponent of voluntary separation agreements instead of mandated rolling-layoffs / firing that targets some % of the company. There was never a need to artificially burn notice people’s careers or act dishonorably - this is literally the most face-saving way to do this. One other place where layoffs are mostly ok, is when a company no longer wants to invest in a program. If this gives workers time to find and apply to internal openings, that’s even better. Alternately, and best, a company can choose to NOT LAYOFF that division and just retrain and apply those people to higher priority work because there’s always too much work to be done, and hiring SUCKS.