Thread regarding IBM layoffs

if @1hgf number are correct and 15% employees are in US with revenue of more then 50% coming from USA then(same way majority profitability are from US business) then where is Trump agenda of "Made in USA" or bringing back jobs to US. Anyone writing letter to their senator to highlight this US listed IBM company who are not only ditching tax (paying zero in taxes,in other article in this forum) as well telling lie and moving more jobs back to Developing countries.Tody hearing rumors there were no layoff at IBM India but they were told they will be reassign to different groups.Anyone in Senate listening to their people ?

Hoe You are absolutely correct, BUT you failed to take IBM accounting into place. USA = 55k, Canada = 7500, México= 15k, and South America = 30k. Total = 107.5 heads. America’s revenue =37 billion or approx 18.3 billion profit. Or. 18.3/107.5 = 170k per head

@evz, Only 15% of the IBM employees (55,000) are in the US nowadays. A majority are in low-cost countries in Asia, South America and Eastern Europe. The revenue per employee metric you are using is US-centric. It is from the times when majority of employees were in the US. This metric cannot be applied to the worldwide employee population because cost per employee is much lower in these other countries.

If you take just the US revenues... it was $37 billion for the Americas in 2018, assume $20 billion was from the US. Take this $20 billion and divide by 55,000, you get $364k per US employee. The US and the employees located in the US are already in the so-called "sweet spot" (and more). Rightsizing is not needed in the US.

Uh, way to steal my revenue comment from the other thread and paste it as your own topic...

Ah Houston. It’s not about where you live, but all about how much you cost. You are not a skill, but rather an interchangeable cog with associated costs. The AI computer in the sky looks at the cost number first, and spits out names. Have a desired skill (don’t care you can be replaced, what do you cost), running at 200% of quota (don’t care you can be replaced, what do you cost), you are billing at 10x your peers (don’t care you can be replace, what do you cost). Remember IBM believes they can train anyone to do your job with a lower cost collar worker. There is a reason the USA and Europe workers have targets on them. They can easily be replaced (especially in the USA), due to cheap infrastructure, and plenty of lower skilled workers who cost less. Until skills are valued more than lower costs, the AI computer will continue to spit names. IBM taught this model to the airlines via their consulting arm, watched the continuing lower cost model play out successfully for 5 years, then adopted it because it worked. Been there done that. Costs are job one within IBM right now, and nothing else matters

We are safe here in Houston. No plans to loose anyone.

If we go back and look at revenue per employee and lay it on top of profit, we can determine the optimum size for IBM. Every company can and has done this over time. You can plot these numbers from the 50’s thru today. There are 3 major era’s that have played out for IBM, plus one transition period. 60’s (Monopoly Mainframe) before integrated circuits, 70-90’s (technology) integrates circuits, 90’s-10’s (Services), 10’s-today (cloud). In every era IBM peaked around 275k per employee. (best profit per dollar taken in). Given that data, and aiming for best profit per dollar, IBM’s sweet spot is in the 240-260k head count. IBM has peaked 3 times in this range over the three era’s, and THUS my argument that it should aim for the same sweet spot in the cloud era. Given IBM’s current status, (350k head count) the rightsizing will most likely result in an 80-100k head count reduction. Whether IBM is aiming for that, or if business practices just push it towards that, I think the future lies in that sweet spot direction. How IBM gets there is yet another story. Good luck to all