What Women Really Want and Bonus Time
Clark: Well, as a matter of fact I won't because Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social...He then follow it up with saying. "Unless you would like to take this outside where we can finish this thing if you want." Which Clark declines and is then later trashed up by Will again when he asks him him...(click here)!
Will: (interrupting) Wood drastically... Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth. You got that from Vickers. "Work in Essex County", page 98, right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you going to plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you, is that you thing, you come into a bar, you read some obscure passage, and then pretend, you pawn it off as your own, as your own idea just to impress some girl and embarrass my friend? You see, the sad thing about a guy like you is that in 50 years, you're gonna start doing some thinking on your own and you're gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One: don't do that. And two: you dropped a 150 grand on a ****in' education you could have gotten for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library.
Clark: Yeah, but I will have degree, and you'll be serving my kids fries at a drive thru on our way to a skiing trip.
Will: (laughing) That may be, but at least I won't be unoriginal.
There it is a guy who can use his mind and his fists (depending on the situation) to defend and protect the honor of his friends and especially his woman. Am I wrong about this?
*************************
This year business on Wall Street has been good. Goldman Sachs has $11 Billion worth of bonus checks to hand out to it's 22,000 employes this year (that's $500,000 per employee). Of course it doesn't get divided up that way. The five I listed above are estimated to recieve a total of $113,000,000 worth of bonus checks sometime this December. They make up a portion of the executive team at Goldman Sachs. You can read the entire article that explains the culture of bonus time on Wall Street (click here for article). It's clear from the article that Goldman Sachs is the place to be (some secretaries get $70,000 bonuses which equal their salaries) on Wall-Street. Kwame Brown doesn't look like he misses the place too much though.
This is why I have never gotten too worked up over the salaries of musicians, athletes, or movie stars. They are on the low to middle rung of the corporate profit machine. It's the men and women who we have never heard of that really make obscene amounts of money.
7 comments:
Bonuses? What are those?
Salaries?? What are those?
women want i guy like will hunting? I hope not. Lets remember this is the same guy who had deep emotional issues. The is the same character who attacked and bloody another guy's face. This is same character is who kicked a police officer. This is the same character who lied to this girl about have 12 brothers. All that to say that i would make sure my daughter stirred cleared of men like will hunting until he was emotionally ready again to build relationships.
CJE
I think his point was centered around the character in that one scene, not the film as a whole.
I agree absolutely Jason well said. I wish the guys name didn't have to be Clark though what's up with that.
As far as inflated salaries I am going to have to differ. Inflated I don't think so. Salaries and bonuses especially in business tend to be based on performance and market demand. The people on wall street making the big money are worth it because they create even more wealth than they receive and if they didn't get it at Goldman’s they could go somewhere else and get something equal or higher. Their skill as business people allows Goldman to pull down big profits. They have helped create huge amounts of wealth and are rewarded for it. I wouldn't say the salaries or bonuses are inflated relative to the amount of money they bring in.
For me the issue is when executives are paid huge bonuses when the company has had an awful year and because their buddies with the board they still get huge payouts.
For the most part whether it's an athlete, movie star, or top exec they make the money they do because they create even more wealth than they make. And I believe that creating wealth can be just as much a gift or talent from God as being able to teach Sunday school or being able to lead worship in some way. We should be careful about either idolizing or putting down those who make more money than we do. Their reward might be a house in the Hamptons and Aspen and some nice cars while someone else’s might be more time with their family or feeling like they are making a big difference in the world. One is not better than the other they are simply different.
Clark:
I understand what you are saying, trickle down economics holds to that believe of a larger body of money (or earners) providing capital for people all the way down the scale.
My issue is the disparity by which wealth gets redistributed and created. Look, for example, at the companies who are defaulting on the pension obligations because of how much it affects the bottom line. Investors praise GM when they lay off 20,000 people because that's how they make money (increased productivity with decreased overhead). Goldman Sachs made a killing in oil futures market because we were all paying $3 or $4 per gallon. We were told we had to pay that much because of Katrina. So if tragedy brings forth a record profit for Exxon, how should they ethically redistribute that wealth? It wasn't anything those executives did it just happened and people got rich off a situation that caused hardships for others. But they don't redistribute that wealth in ways to seek to mitigate some of the dire situations people experienced in the phenomena that brought them record profits.
Jason Not quite. I am not referring to trickle down economics rather the creation of wealth. Trickle down economics is a political term. Created to give tax beaks to wealthy people. The creation of wealth is a concept that benefits society as a whole through the creation of products, innovations, and jobs in the most efficient means possible. Business doesn’t exists and should not exists for the distribution of wealth. Business exists for one sole purpose and that is to create profit and wealth. Is that evil in and of it self absolutely not. This is not my idea Milton Freedman a world renowned economist has published several papers on the subject. For business to work at its greatest efficiency it must be concerned with one thing and that’s the bottom line. Is that heartless and cruel again not only is the answer No but it’s quite the contrary.
Now, for this to work business must have a check, or in the US, the government. The government needs to make proper laws for business’s to abide by and they must hold business’s accountable will they fail to. However, beyond following the laws of the land society is better off when business focuses solely on the bottom line.
By business’s working at their greatest efficiency we get better products at cheaper prices. If business is concerned with matters that are not directly related to the bottom line then they are not working at their greatest efficiency and in effect cheating society out of the best product at the lowest price.
As far as this system being unfair to some because they are left with significantly less, most economist agree that if the wealth were divided up evenly across the board in very short time those who are poor now would continue to be poor and those who are wealthy would regain their wealth.
Is what I have said absolutes, of course not there are cases and examples where the system breaks down but as a theory and concept to operate under it’s the best in my opinion. We could move towards a more socialist approach and productivity would undoubtedly go down and society would reap fewer benefits from business. We would all be worse off.
As for the thousands that get laid off every year before the holiday season its imply sucks and my heart goes out to them and their families. If you want to blame someone blame the government and our current education system not business. Changes certainly need to be made but not on the business end the economy is doing well the government has done a good job of getting some of the bad people out business and the businesses that have done well are investing their profits to create more wealth in the future. The government needs to step up and provide training for individuals who lost their jobs. Bodies of faith should do the same and help in ways that they know how and business should continue to operate as is.
There will be more layoffs in the near future. If you live in this country and you can write a job description that doesn’t include analysis, managerial, and leadership skills that a computer can’t do then your job will soon be taken over by a computer or outsourced somewhere else. Is this bad or evil no of course not. It provides new opportunities for other people around the world all by business simply working at its greatest efficiency.
As for our government, they need to gear it up and realize what’s happening with the economy and help get people in this country the education they need to stay marketable.
Just a few thoughts.
Post a Comment