Good movie... but ridiculous. - The Company Men (2011) Discussion

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 14 years ago

Most stable households put savings aside and one would assume that the bigger the income, the bigger the savings.

Are you kidding? That's the whole point -- you can't assume that. Before the economic crash there were TONS of families like Bobby's that did NOT put savings aside, and had a bigger mortgage than they should have been given and could not get today (now that sanity has been restored to the mortgage lending industry) and also were allowed to put down next to nothing as a down-payment. That is how they could owe so much more than the home was worth, once home prices tanked.

It is completely implausible that so shortly after the end of his severance, they were forced to sell their house

Doesn't sound like you've been following the news these last few years. This is not only plausible, it has happened to many many people. It doesn't take long to go into default when you have no savings, no equity in the home, and nothing coming in (his wife's job put food on the table but was not nearly enough to pay this mortgage.)

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

reply

[–] Atominthebox 14 years ago

I don't believe in simple conveniences just to cover plot holes. If they had no savings, no equity, nothing, it would have been in the script. We can't feel bad for people who don't plan ahead and force themselves into a position by losing a paycheque for a month or two. The idea is for people to relate to the characters and basically say "yeah, I've been there." But to do that with someone earning like $140k a year is pretty far-fetched. Driving a Porsche around, going to a country club, etc, they should have easily had a good 30-40k in the bank. You re-mortgage your house if needed, understanding it could take up to half a year to a year to get rehired in a recession, and you stay optimistic. He was young, educated, experienced... you don't simply sell off all your possessions and house after losing a job for a few months.

reply

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 14 years ago

These things were mentioned, that they had no savings. And it's pretty clear that they spent a ton of money on things they didn't need.

You don't seem to understand that you CAN'T re-mortgage your home if you owe more on it than it is worth. Not to mention that after the crash the lending rules really got tightened.

These are not plot holes, they are reality. It's not far-fetched; I knew people like that when I worked in a job making good money. People got laid off and had NOTHING but the small severance package they got from the company. When that ran out, they were in deep *beep*. Yeah, was stupid of them, but when times are good and a lot of $ was coming in, many people were not thinking of saving. And they assumed that if worse came to worst, they could find another job quickly and easily, as Ben's character initially thought.

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

reply

[–] boshman 14 years ago

@ OP
Your comments are completely naive. To suggest that an American would have huge savings because they are earning (in your opinion) a high salary is flawed thinking. The average working US citizen saving rate fell below 1% of income several times 2000-2010 and even went negative.

Compare that to the Chinese who save 30-50% on MUCH lower incomes. Whats the difference? Americans (and inhabitants of other Western nations including my own) consume...a LOT. Seriously, where have you been for the last 50 years?

People have been/are still over-optimistic about the future. They do not save for a rainy day and there were nearly a million foreclosures in 2009. Also, MTBGF is spot on re-mortgages, of course mis/over-selling was a major contributing factor. Ignoring this in the script would be the unrealistic thing (not to mention make a boring and pointless movie if Affleck just led a more frugal life for years and kept his house).

Have you not seen the news in the last 3 years? In my experience watching just once would be enough to get you upto speed.

Is there anything ELSE you didn't like about the movie? Right now you have no valid negatives.

reply

[–] artistathome 14 years ago

The OP is out of her mind.

What is happening is this. The more you make the more you spend. That is the tragedy. If you make 50,000 you spend it. If you make 500,000 you spend that.

People who make a lot want a nice house, nice cars, etc. I couldn't believe he could have that house and those cars and the club, etc on 120, plus stock options. That is middle class and not even upper, in today's economy.

Both Phil and Bobby They were living way beyond their means and Bobby's wife knew it. Phi's wife was out of it. And he could not rely on her to help. So he just killed himself and they got his insurance money!

I assume that Phil would have stock and 401K etc. I agree that he should have had something put away as savings.

aS to stock options, if you don't understand it, don't post about it. Even with stock, if you cash it in, you pay a HUGE tax bill. And everything you may have earned goes up in smoke.
It is a real slippery slope. If Bobby and Maggie were to have any retirement at all they had to leave any stocks he had ALONE. He was only 37 and had many years left before retirement.
He expected to get another job anyway. And he did!!

Just buy way less house and downsize in every way is the lesson here.

reply

[–] SomervilleRed 14 years ago

Actually, unvested stock options go away when you get laid off --- same with restricted stock that hasn't vested -- and vested ones have to be exercised pretty quickly. At his pay level and in a mature company, he wouldn't have had that much incentive equity.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bldrstan 13 years ago

The suicide clause in Life policies are only for the first 2 years. After that they would have to pay.

reply

[–] ignorantwordtwister 12 years ago

It also depends on state. Some don't have a clause at all.

reply

[–] d-medlin 14 years ago

I agree with the OP, there was one point after he had already been thrown off the golf course and already gotten rid of the Porsche when he said, "Here's my last check!" Hell, the movie was acting like they were in such dire straits when they hadn't even exhausted his severance pay yet.

reply

[–] alioth4 11 years ago

His wife cancelled the club membership, and probably talked him into selling the Porsche (unless he came to his senses and decided that himself) and getting rid of those high payments--because she was anticipating the severance running out, and wanted to make what was left last longer. Which I think is prudent--they should have been saving long before that, but once they knew there was only 3 months pay coming after he lost his job (with no certainty of getting a new job, especially a comparable one, soon), that would most certainly be a wake-up call to cut back on the non-necessities. Or do they keep up their spending, full-steam ahead, and go over a much steeper cliff when that three months is done?

Having to give up a club membership and Porsche isn't dire straits--but it can be done in anticipation of them, maybe to at least buy a little more time until they really are in the dire straits. His wife seemed to understand more than he that there were no guarantees that he'd get a comparable job and they'd be able to resume the lifestyle they'd been accustomed to. Contrast Woodward's wife who sounded like she had to keep up appearances above all else, which probably was a big factor that drove the poor guy to suicide.

"No more half-measures."

reply

[–] eastcoastguyz 13 years ago

Very good points.

Plus when times were good, the banks always gave you enough rope to hang yourself. If you ever used those affordability calculations offered by the bank to determine how much you can afford for a monthly mortgage with property taxes and insurance, most intelligent people handling their own fiances would find what you could afford to be totally out of whack. But their family and friends repeatedly tell them, "If you couldn't afford this, the bank would tell you." Well, that's not true, because the mortgage company doesn't know or care about what other obligations you might have. For example, on the loan application they don't ask you if you send $500.00 a month to an aging relative. They don't ask you about your retirement goals and planning. They don't look to see if you have money put aside for your kids college tuition. They don't care, because the most they loan you, the more interest they collect and that's how they make the money. People sadly got this all along that the mortgage lenders were there to consultant for you financially by telling you how much you could afford.

So people who followed the mortgage company's advice of loaning them the maximum amount found themselves strapped for cash each month. They bought the biggest house they could afford, afford according to the mortgage company's affordability calculations which is nuts, and then they go along in life. The slightest ripple means big trouble for them. The company decides to move the plant overseas or out-sources what employee does and now they are out of a job.

The thing is, these types of people were in trouble from the start and didn't even know it. They allowed themselves to be set up for failure from the start. Even in good times if you are not saving money and just spending it all, it's going to be the worst for those people.

Then there are the types of people who took a different approach. They bought a home they actually needed. They bought used cars and took real good care of them and didn't try to lead such a materialistic lifestyle and focused on saving and investing. The have a lifestyle which can afford to exist fine on only one income even though both are working. That extra money they save is their emergency fund. Then one day, when one of them are called into the office with their boss and someone from HR and told they are being let go, they don't freak out about it. They take the severance package and use the time wisely to not only hunt for another job but update their skills in the process. Those people have a much greater chance of being able to get through the tough times.

For years unsolicited credit card approvals and applications came in the postal mail several times a month pushing people to take out more loans and to do more spending than they needed. Then the mortgage companies would push those with loans to re-finance to take out their equity and even loan them more than what the house is worth. Many would take that additional money and not invest it into the home by increasing it's value but by buying a new shiny car they didn't need or go on vacations they clearly could have done without.

Yes, life can be unfair and you can do your best planning and still find yourself out of a job, but being an adult is learning to plan and take care of yourself and family to prepare for those hard times.

reply

[–] ruffian82 13 years ago

Then there are the types of people who took a different approach. They bought a home they actually needed. They bought used cars and took real good care of them and didn't try to lead such a materialistic lifestyle and focused on saving and investing. The have a lifestyle which can afford to exist fine on only one income even though both are working. That extra money they save is their emergency fund. Then one day, when one of them are called into the office with their boss and someone from HR and told they are being let go, they don't freak out about it. They take the severance package and use the time wisely to not only hunt for another job but update their skills in the process. Those people have a much greater chance of being able to get through the tough times.

I absolutely agree with you!
Unless...they had the wrong 401k, or worked for a company that 'pushed' them to buy and keep their stock to seem 'willing' employees, or if they were a victim of identity theft, and since they were so sound, they did not notice immediately when someone claimed their savings as their own, or in some cases, incredibly, their houses were remortgaged without their knowledge. Or some hedge fund manager took the bulk of their egg because he was so careful and so trustworthy until the day he wasn't answering the phone.

Those people haunt me the most.
They did everything right.
They're still hungry.

reply

[–] jrichards1408-652-598444 12 years ago

Sorry but i am with the OP. i know plenty of people in my work industry who have been contractors for over 20 years and he gave me one golden rule.

guess what that golden rule is?

SAVE SAVE SAVE. SAVE A buffer. dont live like a millionaire spending money on pointless things.

my work mate could be without a job now and live comfertably for a good few years. he has also paid off his mortage too.

If i was Ben aflek earning what was like 1.5m per annum? i would bloody well have saved a nice chunk each year. even just saving 50k for what was it, 10+ years he was with that company. i would have 500k savings over just 10 years.

I know another co worker, a contractor again, owns two properties. one he rents out and the other close to paying off the mortgage. Has a buffer and nice stable stream of income coming in from renting out his other property.

That guy probably doesnt NEED to work anymore lol.

The trick is to really save. it is as simple as that. If you save it will benefit you in the long run. Mix the good life with savings.

Buy stuff if u know that after purchasing something, your savings/buffer doesnt take a huge dent

reply

[–] alioth4 11 years ago

If i was Ben aflek earning what was like 1.5m per annum? i would bloody well have saved a nice chunk each year. even just saving 50k for what was it, 10+ years he was with that company. i would have 500k savings over just 10 years.

The actor Ben Affleck probably makes 1.5 million per year (or more), but his character in this movie made $160,000 per year (he told Jack the $80K he would make with the new job offer was half what he made before).

He could still have saved (especially if he had a more reasonably-sized house), but 50k per year might be a stretch after taxes, with a wife and two kids.

"No more half-measures."

reply

[–] Mr Blue-4 14 years ago

SupR G, one of the points of the movie is to show how over-extended a bunch of people were before the Crash. Did you not get the point of seeing all the opulence of all those homes in the begining (contrasted with what Kevin Costner was living in and where Ben grew up)? These guys, though making a fair amount of money, were pushing it to the limit. I don't know that a father of two making maybe $150,000 can really afford a Porsche. It would seem as long as the money pours in AND credit remains easy. Take both of those away, and everything else goes fast.

We didn't need a scene where Ben and his wife explained their finances to the dollar. Most of us got the point that they could barely afford what they had when Ben was working. Your assumption that their savings must have been around $30-40k is just that, an assumption. This is the way a bunch of people were living until things went south.

reply

[–] khruzek 13 years ago

There is nothing ridiculous about this movie. It totally hits home with me. I have been living it for 4 years. As a woman in her late 50s, successful sales executive, no one will hire me. Ben Afflect was 37 years old, and lucky to have a brother-in-law that would hire him.

Employers look at my resume, which is very good which mean "Over qualified". That translates to too old and made too much money. I am also an insulin dependent diabetic. Another job killer.

As far as over living your limits, I put every spare dime into my company 401K, and had up to 7 figures planned for retirement at 50 years old. Unfortunately, I worked for MCI, then WCOM. Lost every dime of my pension (still fighting that one) and all of my 401K when WCOM crashed. Everything gone in a weekend. And I can name two executives that did commit suicide.

I can't get a job at Wal-Mart, Macy's, and there are thousands of applications for 1 position that opens up in my industry. And they don't want 57 year olds on insulin. Oh and disability doesn't agree.

So before you judge get in this living hell I am in. I paid the max in taxes, put money away for the future in my company, and worked 80 - 100 hours a week to keep my job. And you know the sad thing, there are hundreds I worked with in the same situation. I'm no martyr. Trust me. I've beat the streets and begged for work. Paid off my home, have no credit cards, and my only debt is utilities and medical bills. And I'm still not making it. Oh, I bought a small house for $54K which it took 30 years to pay off.

reply

[–] zdrs02-1 13 years ago

I was basically thinking the same thing. Affleck mentions he was making 128K per year and wife is working part time nurse. Why would anyone in their right mind have a porsche, country club membership, mortgage more than $850K (when wife says they could get $850 for house and he says we owe more than that) and two kids.

This movie says a lot about where a lot of Americans priorities are lacking.

reply

[–] electrictroy 12 years ago

>>>Most stable households put savings aside

Sorry but THIS is where your whole review falls apart. Most households DON'T put savings aside. Most households spend more then they make and are only 1-2 months from bankruptcy when the unemployment checks stop coming-in. In fact the average American carries $100,000 in debt..... mostly mortgage but also 10,000 in credit card debt. They use their credit cards to buy the things they want rather than save the money, so when the job disappears they have no way to pay their bills. That's the sad fact of how Americans live.

reply

[–] DCI77 11 years ago

Dear Lord. What is with people and not fully reading and comprehending each word on IMDb? Most stable households - which I assume means most financially stable households - is what the OP is talking about. If so, then it doesn't make his review fall apart. At best it helps makes the point and at worst it makes people ask "What do you mean, exactly, by 'stable'?"

>> That's the sad fact of how Americans live.

It's sad fact for some, but not for all.

2014: Whiplash, Cold in July, that Terrence Malick project set in Austin

reply

[–] Stirchley 12 years ago

If they had no savings, no equity, nothing, it would have been in the script.

It was.

reply

[–] lindugh 14 years ago

I agree that having to sell the house and move in with parents was totally over the top.

reply

[–] rama2 13 years ago

i agree with much -- my bro makes $120k pa and still has no money - doenst even have a family just him on his own --- its the lifestyle just eats it all up ---

reply

[–] mathmaniac 13 years ago

I recently heard a discussion on the radio about foreclosures. Yes, people do have to sell their houses. When they have money saved, but no job waiting in the wings when they are laid off from the present job, they face a situation in which: they may have a mortage of 350,000 and a house that is now worth only 200,000. To stay or to go? That's the question. If they stay and pour all their savings into the bills they still have to pay, such as a mortgage on something that may be worth half the house debt they carry, that's throwing good money after bad. Unless you think that someday the market will recover enough to make all the money you sink into a house worth the drain from your present day savings (with no job in sight to replace your old job), you will let the bank foreclose. Your credit rating takes a hit (but you will recover and have a good credit rating someday again...) and most importantly, you will still have your savings. Your savings will stay secure and continue to earn interest and be available if you have to face a catastrophic illness, for example (because your health insurance will be a heavy burden from now on... but you will have to pay for it and ANYTHING it does NOT cover...)

Yeah, yeah. So and so had a lay off in the family and didn't have to sell the house. Well, did they continue to have health insurance? Was the house in a market on the upswing or was it losing value every day? Did they have the mortgage paid off? Did they have a fixed rate mortgage or an adjustable rate? All of these things are usually information you DON'T know about the person's finances. And yet, you can look at them and say: well, they didn't have to lose their house. Sure. Were they making it on a budget that allowed them to go from one low-paying job to another? Good for them. They may have already paid off their mortgage. Good for them. At that point, they are paying fixed expenses that aren't changing much. And if you make it on a low salary and you are laid off, there are plenty of low-paying jobs (some people have to take two low-paying jobs to pay their bills AND save) to move on to.

When the economy starts going south big-time, a lot of people face the situation where there is no market for what they paid big bucks for in the first place. That's particularly painful. Losing a house is something that many, many people have to face - and sometimes they hoped that the house was an investment so they didn't have much money saved. If they did have some money saved, you better believe they are paying exhorbitant sums to have health insurance for their families.

reply

[–] LnineB 14 years ago

I personally know 3 Architects that have experienced worse than what happened in this movie.

I love !

reply

[–] testinator 14 years ago

The guy had a huge house with a mortgage that his salary could comfortably cover, but that's it. That house must've been what, $1m? Say a 25 year mortgage at 6% APR with a downpayment of $50k, and you're looking at a yearly mortgage payment (interest + repayment) of around $70k per year. His salary from the movie was $120+bonuses, which may be around $150k per year. Nearly half his salary would have gone on the mortgage. The rest was clearly being spent on a very lavish lifestyle (porche, expensive dinners and regularly eating out, country club membership, etc etc) and you can rest assured not much at all will be left over for savings. Given that he was quite young and his wife wasn't working, then yeah, I don't see how this situation is unrealistic at all, in fact it's probably more realistic and true to real life.

reply

[–] Atominthebox 14 years ago

I live in a country where the cost of living is greater and families in the middle class own houses worth upwards of $500,000 outside of the city and well over $1 million in the city and none of these people earn over $100,000 a year. Perhaps when you factor in two-income families, and the country involved, there are variables to consider. But if you are speaking from logic, experience, or whatever, it doesn't change the fact that the character was a complete tool and he and his wife lived on the utter edge of their means to the point where when the last paycheque rolled in they had to sell their car, house, even the kid's Xbox. If that's normal to you, and if that makes me naive, then I guess I can consider myself lucky to be smarter then that.

reply

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 14 years ago

If that's normal to you, and if that makes me naive, then I guess I can consider myself lucky to be smarter then that.

You still don't get it. We aren't saying it's normal in terms of justifying it. Nobody on this thread has said it was smart. What we are saying is that it was very COMMON before the economic crash.

You come across as naive because you are posting that the scenario is not realistic, even calling it "plot holes", just because it is outside your own personal experience. Actually, the scenario is very realistic and common, which you would know if you were at all informed.

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

reply

[–] Atominthebox 14 years ago

Do you tend to insult people you have debates with? Is that supposed to make your argument more substantiated? Just because you say it's reality doesn't make it so. Show me proof, case studies, testimony of people this exact situation has happened to and maybe I'll believe you then. Though I bet you'll just be coming up with another way to call me an idiot.

reply

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 14 years ago

Sigh. Just re-read posts in this thread. As posted in this very thread, studies shown even before the crash showed the Americans (and other countries' citizens) were saving 1% or less. Like I said, you are not well informed. Not an insult, just what you are displaying. Hell, you didn't even know that you can't refinance if you owe more on a mortgage than it's worth, yet you feel qualified to say that what is shown in the movie is not realistic. It's like trying to tell someone that 2+2=4 and the person saying "just because you say so doesn't make it so." So I say, the information is out there if you want to educate yourself.

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

reply

[–] Joe_Favitz 14 years ago

What does Gandhi have to do with The Company Men (although Hank Kinglsey was great and deserved the Oscar).I would bet, howver, that Ben AFlac saved A LOT of his money after "Gigli" because there were probably people chasing him around Hollywood screaming, "You'll never work in this town AGAIN!" Plus, he was later in a movie called "SupermanLand", about George Reeve who was Superman in black-and-white TV in the 50s, and never worked again!

reply

[–] Atominthebox 14 years ago

Okay, well you're condescending. Not to be insulting, but that's what you "display". This movie isn't an exercise in economics, it's a story. In films, we relate to the characters by relating that story to real life. Whether that be society, or personal experiences. In my personal experience, I've seen people with less income, million-dollar houses, unemployed for years survive more then the main characters. It's not believable to me now, and probably won't ever be. While I appreciate the production, performances and feel on a whole it's a good film, I will never relate to the main characters. It's a critique, okay? Save your condescension and just f-off.

reply

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 14 years ago

In the time you took to reply, you could have educated yourself. Nice to see you haven't changed.

I wonder why you are singling out my post to be "offended" by. Have you read the other replies, like the one who asked where you have been for the last 50 years? Or asking if you even watched the news once in the last 3 years?

I can't personally relate to his crass materialism and poor financial choices, but I know that it is believable. Relatable and believable are separate things. If something didn't seem believable to me, yet everyone else in a thread is telling me it is believable and it's HAPPENED to many people, I for one would rethink my opinion. But not you. It's kind of funny that you can't relate to the characters, because the Ben Affleck character is another person who can't be told anything -- he dismisses anything unless/until he learns it first-hand.

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

reply

[–] astat-2 13 years ago

SupR_G, we (the imdb community) are very disappointed by your posts in this topic. You do not understand how cruel life can be.

reply

[–] Indexi 13 years ago

You do not understand how cruel life can be.

I think he understands that life can be cruel, but certainly doesn't understand that most people live their lives relative to what they are earning. Most people will evaluate how much they can afford to pay for a house, what cars they can buy and in general what kind of lifestyle they can lead based on what they are earning. This situation is perfectly normal as it doesn't make any sense to have a large amount of money stacked unless you are anticipating losing your income.
This is why the recession has been so hard. You can argue about this kind of spending and it's value as much as you like, but it's just how most people plan their economy. Arguing that this isn't realistic is simply laughable.

reply

[–] dcb-27 13 years ago

My husband and I...we are proof

reply

[–] wifi13 12 years ago

I concur with your accurately assessed reiteration. The other posters' obviously cannot relate to the obviousness of the "over-Extended" aspect of the storyline.

reply

[–] testinator 14 years ago

Also your mother's example shows your naivety regarding mortgages. What relevance does that have to anyone else? It's like me saying I can afford to make my loan repayments - it's an irrelevant statement since there's nothing said about how much I've loaned, what I'm repaying with the interest, what my income or savings are, what help I might be getting, what my expenses are, etc etc. Everyone is different, and so their financial situations and the debts they owe and the means they have to repay those debts can be just as different.

I don't know how old you are, but with the greatest of respect I don't think you know much about the world outside of your family's example. The majority of families certainly do not have savings, the same is true in the UK as much as it is in the US.

reply

[–] bill_graham 14 years ago

People don't save because there's no incentive in savings. Everybody's money goes into IRA's and retirement funds that can't be touched without huge losses. Talk to any investment rep and they'll give you a blank look if you talk savings to them. It's all about investment. Everybody invests.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] liplip 14 years ago

The movie had a nice feel, was beautifully shot, it surely was slow, but I was never bored.

But I just couldn't relate to the the Bobby Walker character in any way. He was a jerk who simply believed to be a rich guy while he never was one. He lived on the nod without any security. With a house morgage who was probably eating up half of his salary. Then he got sacked and his facade came down. Well tough. - I actually grinned a few times at his misery.

reply

[–] testinator 14 years ago

The character was arrogant and a jerk, completely full of himself. Costner's character highlighted this, when he offered him work and he turned it down with contempt as he considered himself above manual labour.

But by the end of it, I warmed to him because his personality had changed. His ego was brought down by his and his families' struggles, and he accepted the change eventually. The biggest turning point was when he was effectively rejected for yet another role when the person who wanted to interview him wasn't in the same state. No longer arrogant and full of himself, he started appreciating other aspects of life. I wish many rich folk would go through the same experiences just to realise how the world works for those of us who aren't in cushy exclusive jobs or swimming around in inherited money - and that we're just as human as they are.

reply

[–] nikkiten1979 13 years ago

He was a jerk who simply believed to be a rich guy while he never was one.

I couldn't relate to his character, but I could relate to his situation... because I have been in the same situation, but I wasn't stubborn about it. I didn't own a home, a car, didn't go out much, didn't have an expensive lifestyle, didn't have children, BUT I owed nearly $100K in student loans - it's now down to $50k (5 years later) - sometimes I wonder HOW did I cut that loan down to half? My credit isn't great because I defaulted more than a few times because I simply didn't make enough to pay off ANYTHING at all for a few months at times. I took whatever job I could find though because I could watch myself just sit home and do nothing. I was slightly overqualified for almost every job I was looking for in my industry even though I was under 30. I was hired to great companies and made good money for a few months and all of a sudden they went bankrupt - 3 companies! After that I decided that I couldn't put myself through it again and started looking at other options that had nothing to do with what I studied, but still could make a semi-decent yearly salary and whatever I studied I could do as a freelancer - so far it's working.

Also $150k sounds like a lot of money... but it's not that much when you live in certain neighborhoods, own a porshe, your wife doesn't work, and both kids probably go to private schools, and you belong to a gold clubs (those are EXPENSIVE!!!) - you have to keep up with a certain lifestyle to be around a certain circle of people for networking. Also even if he had savings (seems like he didn't) those savings would dwindle like dry leaves on a windy day!!! It's easy, REALLY, really easy to lose $50K in a few months.

(•_•)

can't outrun your own shadow

reply

[–] HankFlanders 14 years ago

I could sort of see how Bobby Walker was overextended, as he had a Porsche and a house where $850,000 still wouldn't pay off his mortgage. All of this was on a $160,000 salary. The real problem I had, though, was with Phil Woodward. He was pretty high up in the company and was nearing retirement age, anyway. He should have had some retirement savings, even if he had only stayed a low-level employee all those years. However, Phil, a 60-year-old employee with decades with the company, obviously had a job where he was making well into six figures and maybe more, and he couldn't afford his daughter's college tuition just a few months after he lost his job? I just wasn't buying it. Other than that glaring flaw, I liked the movie a lot.

reply

[–] tony-clifton 14 years ago

Actually Phil's position is believable. Yes he probably saved something, but the problem now is that he is unemployable. High-flying old sales people are very hard to re-employ as they don't offer any company anything that a younger sales person can offer. You don't need 20-30 years experience in sales to be good - you need 5-10 years and a track record; therefore who would re-employ Phil?

reply

[–] HankFlanders 14 years ago

Well, I didn't have any issues with Phil's problems in trying to get rehired. I actually liked that part of the movie, especially when he went for an interview, and there were dozens of much younger applicants waiting in the hall to presumably interview for the same job. I'm just talking about the supposed financial bind he was in. If he had been out of work for years, I might have been able to accept that he was insolvent, but not just a few months after getting canned.

reply

[–] goodone1944 14 years ago

I don't know what tuition at Brown is, but I'll bet it is substantial. Maybe $25,000 per semester.

reply

[–] tony-clifton 14 years ago

I make more than Bobby and probably pay less tax too because I am not an employee; and yet my lifestyle is significantly less extravagant than Bobby's. Bobby lived a lifestyle way above what he should have, and that's why his life came crashing down. I can understand because when my income suddenly jumped, I felt tempted to buy heaps of stuff - but the difference was I didn't go into debt. The biggest mistake a lot of people make is buying bigger homes and nicer cars by taking on bigger debt.

The better way is to pay off all debt before upgrading.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] goodone1944 14 years ago

Doctor Blue---I agree wholeheartedly with your posts. I found it interesting that just last week was news that Texas had 48% of all the new jobs (reported in a certain time frame). Texas has no state tax and is a conservatively run state compared to California which is very liberal/socialist with high taxes. I believe the unemployment rate in Texas is 5.5%

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tomboston191 14 years ago

Wow, "bluesdoctor"...where to begin...
Trickle down economics DID NOT WORK. Never has, never will.
We now live in a society where 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth.
You call that "worked" ?
Do you seriously think that unrestricted capitalism is what made this country great ?
Yes, of course you do, but the fact is that the economy in this country has only grown when all levels of society are given the opportunity to grow, and that does not happen naturally. Without restrictions, capitalism leads to monopolies, and economic catastrophe for the bottom 99%.
Our current budgetary woes are ENTIRELY the result of the drastic reductions in the taxation of the richest of the rich. Not long ago, there was a tax rate of 90% (after exemptions for the first few million), and guess what, the economy grew. But then they bought our government, lock stock and barrel, and drastically lowered the percentage of revenue they contributed to our budget. Hence shortfall. Today, the money that used to be pumped back into OUR country is being shipped directly to COMMUNIST China where it can generate the greatest return. Instead of building roads and bridges and schools and hospitals in the US, that money is growing the economy of COMMUNIST China.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]