When Ghostbusters debuted 40 years ago, its blend of comedy, action, and state of the art special effects made it an instant classic. The eminently quotable staple of every 80s childhood has launched a film franchise that can make all of us feel a little nostalgic.
Since Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire is premiering this week, now is an excellent time to look a little closer at the messages underneath the witty dialogue and melted marshmallow. And there are some odd, regressive, and downright reprehensible financial lessons lurking in the original film.
And unlike Gozer the Gozerian, these insidious money messages really can hurt us.
The Message: Regulation Kills Innovation
The innovation-sapping power of regulations is a common complaint among entrepreneurs. When rules circumscribe the options for creating new technologies or using existing tech in new ways, the argument goes, business and society lose out on potential solutions to problems.
That’s why the Ghostbusters never worried about regulations when starting their new business. No one would have granted them licenses to install a ghost containment unit in the basement of a New York City firehouse or carry nuclear accelerators on their backs.
And for good reason!
Walter Peck, the officious inspector for the Environmental Protection Agency, is presented as the antagonist to our heroes. He forces the Ghostbusters to shut down their power grid, hastening the arrival of Gozer. The film makes it clear that Peck (and the EPA regulations he enforces) destroy an innovative business providing a necessary service. Had Peck not interfered, the Ghostbusters would not have had to face down Mr. Stay-Puft.
Why It’s Insidious
The film presents Peck as a bureaucratic weenie. His actions directly lead to the destruction of the firehouse, the reunion of the Keymaster and the Gatekeeper, and the arrest of our heroes. But the actual events of the film prove Peck is 100% right–if for the wrong reasons.
Peck insists that the ghosts are not real and the Ghostbusters are charlatans. He worries that toxic waste is a byproduct of the containment unit, which is why he shuts it down. While he was incorrect about the ghosts and the waste, he was right on the money about the environmental dangers posed by the business: The idea of four random guys running around Manhattan wearing unlicensed nuclear accelerators should chill everyone’s blood.
Though the film preaches the perils of overzealous regulation, the events of the movie don’t support that lesson. There should be some environmental regulations in place to keep random untenured parapsychologists from creating a ghost storage facility in the middle of a city – or to, say, maybe keep a major automaker from selling cars with known defects that lead to multiple fatalities.
The Message: Huge Financial Risks Pay Off
The three original Ghostbusters fund their business venture by taking out a third mortgage on the childhood home of Ray Stantz at 19% interest–which will cost $95,000 ($283,700 in 2024 dollars) in interest alone in the first five years.
In the movie, it all pays off for Ray: After a slow start, the Ghostbusters business becomes a tremendous success. Not only do they have more business than they can handle, but they become media darlings.
This big swing and huge success taught us that it’s worthwhile to take major risks because you might get the Ghostbusters out of it.
Why It’s Insidious
Movies like Ghostbusters prime us to believe that taking big financial risks will work out, because they work out for the characters in the film. We get to watch the delightful creation of this scrappy business. But we don’t have to deal with the financial fallout.
In reality, taking a third mortgage is financially reckless. The Ghostbusters are launching an untested business venture with extremely high startup costs using a high cost loan with precious collateral. We are encouraged to believe Peter Venkman’s assurance that Ray is “never gonna regret this”–because the audience doesn’t regret it.
Not only is it likely that Ray will default on this third mortgage (not to mention the other two), but he will lose his house and deal with the long-lasting effects on his credit score for years.
The Message: Risk-taking Entrepreneurs Reap All the Rewards
When the Ghostbusters get their first real assignment–hunting down Slimer in the posh Sedgewick Hotel–their lack of practice with the equipment leads to hundreds of dollars in damage. (Side note: This is also a good time to reflect on the importance of business insurance.)
Once they have successfully captured Slimer, the Ghostbusters tell the manager their services cost $5,000 (approximately $15,000 in 2024 money). The manager balks at the price, but caves as soon as the Ghostbusters threaten to release the ghost back into the hotel.
Like Mark Zuckerberg turning down Yahoo’s billion-dollar offer to acquire Facebook in 2006, this moment in the film is a masterclass in entrepreneurial leverage. Peter, Ray, and Egon understand the value of their services and they are willing to walk away rather than accept less than they deserve.
Why It’s Insidious
While the original three Ghostbusters protect the value of their enterprise, they are not willing to pay their employees what they deserve, an early pop-culture illustration of how trickle-down economics often tend to trickle up.
When Janine complains about the workload and low pay to Peter, he tells her that “someone with your qualifications would have no trouble finding a top-flight job in either the food service or housekeeping industries.” Understandably frustrated, Janine remarks to herself, “I’ve quit better jobs than this!”
The Ghostbusters would probably agree to Janine’s demands if she actually quit (or threatened to), since the business can’t run without her. But even though the Ghostbusters understand the worth of their own work, they don’t extend it to Janine. She will have to play hardball with them to get the money she deserves–rather than simply asking.
Similarly, once the Ghostbusters realize they must endanger their lives by crossing the streams to fight Gozer, Winston Zeddemore says aloud, “This job is definitely not worth $11,500 a year!” Considering that salary would be equivalent to just over $34,000 in 2024, Winston has a point. He’s being asked to risk his life for less than half the minimum salary necessary to live comfortably in New York City.
Ray, Peter, or Egon could have told Winston he was up for a raise and a bonus if they lived through it all. (Or even just thanked him for being there when they needed him.) But instead, they make no comment about how little they are paying him to do a truly dangerous job.
Winston could probably get more money by threatening to walk away, just as the Ghostbusters did at the Sedgewick. But he shouldn’t have to.
Bustin’ (Money Myths) Makes Me Feel Good
Taking a deep dive into the underlying meaning of a 40-year-old comedy can feel silly. The film seems like “the most harmless thing. Something I loved from my childhood,” as Ray explains after having accidentally conjured Mr. Stay-Puft. “Something that could never ever possibly destroy us.”
But Ghostbusters helped shape the culture of an entire generation, and continues to resonate with younger audiences as the franchise grows. Enjoying this film without scrutiny can lead to accepting some worrying beliefs: that the EPA and other government regulatory bodies are the enemy, that no economic risk is too great, and that business owners have no responsibility to share the wealth they create with employees. And that is worth re-examining, even while you appreciate the laughs and nostalgia.
