That's exactly the value I was alluding to. Is paying these folks, say, 20% more than someone in their 30's really a boat anchor, or is it an asset?
A decade ago, IBM had 130,00 staff in the USA and very few in India.
Today, IBM has 130,00 staff in India and it refuses to say how many are left in the USA.
It's not really a question of saving a bit of money (20%, say) on American employees. IBM is just shipping jobs to India at a terrific rate because the cost of employing Indians is, in comparison, very very low.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/ibm-shifts-center-of-g...
If most of your workforce is 50+, you probably don't need more highly experienced people and are probably overpaying for some of the more basic tasks some are doing. It's also not great for continuity if you're set to have large segments of your workforce retiring in a small window of time.
On the other hand, if your workforce skews young and inexperienced, bringing in some people with much more experience is probably going to be a valuable resource for them that'll help everyone perform better, and will help you avoid costly mistakes.