On one hand the issue of the $165 million in bonuses going out to employees in the 370 person Financial Products Group, and oth the other the need to wind up the complex derivative contracts that are causing these huge losses at AIG. But are such huge payouts needed for these employees to do their job? Isn't this aprofessional responsibility of these employees? And AIG's retention-payment program was disclosed a year ago and the amount of the bonuses $400 million, says the Washington Post, had been widely reported. The company is set to pay according to the WPost $600 million in retention awards to about 4700 people throughout the global insurance units. WHat happens to the $600 million, as no opinion has been voiced on these upcoming payments. The whole idea of retention payment raises another question. Will the skills of these employees be needed in a long drawn out economic downturn spread over several years or longer. And will thefailure of such things as derivatives, and the tighter regulation, mean that they will play amuch smaller role in the future. And even in the insurance units will these skills draw a premium in a market where the supply of new talent is larger than the job market ? One expert has sugggested that even if some of them left, there would be younger people to replace them who might bring an even better set of qualifications, with amix of skills, caution and prudence. So is there something self-interested and spurious in the retention argument itself and shouldn't this bluff be called? ...