Yeah, Duh

Via Insty comes this belated news:

IBM faces age bias complaints in arbitration and court proceedings by former employees across the country. A former IBM vice president of human resources said in a court deposition in one of the cases that the company faced talent recruitment problems and determined one way to show millennials that IBM was not “an old fuddy duddy organization” was to make itself appear “as [a] cool, trendy organization.”

In one email chain, an International Business Machines Corp. official described a plan to “accelerate change by inviting the ‘dinobabies’ (new species) to leave” and turn them into an “Extinct species,” according to the filing. Company officials also complained about IBM’s “dated maternal workforce” that “must change,” and discussed frustration that IBM had a much lower share of millennials in its workforce than a competitor, but said its share would increase following layoffs, according to the filing.

Of course, IBM denies all this, oh no we’d never do a thing like that:

An IBM spokesperson said in a statement that the company never engaged in systematic age discrimination and it terminated employees because of changing business conditions, not because of their age. In 2020, the median age of IBM’s U.S. workforce was 48, the same as it was in 2010, according to the statement.

The spokesperson also said the language cited in the emails “is not consistent with the respect IBM has for its employees and as the facts clearly show, it does not reflect company practices or policies.”

Lying cocksuckers.

It’s an open secret that old farts get shafted in today’s workplace:  “Become a Wal-Mart greeter” used to be the dismissive term leveled at us.  Only now (at the Wal-Marts around my house anyway), the cheery old duffers who waved you in and checked your Sam’s Club purchases on the way out have all — all — been replaced by younger Indians and “efnicks”.

Fuck all of you corporate assholes, and enjoy the taste on your tongues as you lick the rank feet of Millennial wokedom.

I hope you all die  painfully.

Apologies

Because I thought Sunday’s date was October 30, yesterday’s post would have appeared today, except I caught the mistake late last night.

Everybody got that?  (I can go over the middle bit again…)

Sorry about that.  Here’s a pic of a gun to make everyone feel better:

Hey, Winston Churchill used one to kill fuzzy-wuzzies, so how bad can it be?

Wrong Strategy

…or strategery, if you prefer.  Here’s the question:

To my mind, that’s a silly worry.  Unless you’re blessed with 20/20 forecasting powers, my bet is that the cost of your favorite booze will climb way beyond your poor (and probably belated) efforts to be able to invest your money to buy it at some point in the future.  (As far as I know, there’s no such thing as a Booze Index to which you can tie your savings, more’s the pity.)

The answer, of course, is to buy booze now in sufficient quantities to support your intake in your retirement years.  This is sound advice, provided that you aren’t one of those people who, if they have more booze, simply drink more of it.

Mr. Free Market, of course, has a wine cellar which would even satisfy a hundred Richard Burtons;  but being the crafty sod that he is, he stores it not at Freemarket Towers, but in a climate-controlled room at a remote location a hundred miles away.

However, we are not all like him, not having access to his bloated plutocratic fortune;  and if I read the situation correctly, even if any of my Loyal Readers do have a climate-controlled room, it’s most likely filled with guns, ammo and SHTF supplies.

Nevertheless, I recommend stockpiling booze now, rather than hoping that your retirement savings will be able to sustain your alcohol needs in the future.  And for those interested in such things, I rather think that putting away a case of (e.g.) J&B or Maker’s Mark (~$240) each month will be a guarantee of future Booze Self-Sufficiency.

And if you happen to snuff it prematurely, the remainder would be an excellent (and tax-free) inheritance for your Wretched & Ungrateful Heirs as they climb over your still-warm corpse and begin pillaging your house.

Just a thought.

Perils Of Age

The other day I was skimming Teh Intarwebz, idly looking at smut pics of pretty women, and saw this creature:

I had (and still have) no idea who she is, but my lecherous gaze was somewhat tempered by my feeling of guilt for ogling a teenage girl.  (Of course, it turns out that she’s actually 30, so my guilt was misplaced.)

Which brings me to my point.

As we get older — I’m fairly sure I’m not alone in this — everyone not looking like the late Prince Philip looks about twelve years old, and I often wonder when we started promoting adolescents to positions of power and authority.

I’m not even talking about celebrity women, who with the aid of surgery can look decades younger than their actual age.  I’m talking about everyday people we see on television, who are supposedly in charge of some important function, but who seem to still need adolescent acne cream.

Then again, who cares?  As long as we can ogle the likes of Carol Vorderman, Annabella Sciorra or Jennifer Grey (all aged 60):

   

…I don’t really care that foreign policy is being run by someone who looks like Doogie Howser, or that Steve Urkel somehow became President of the United States.