What this formula represents (don't worry, I consulted with male colleagues before even attempting to understand this) is the cost of harassing women in the workplace as a function of the cost of settling harassment suits (in this case, $13 million) over time spent ignoring them (13 years), as well as lost ad revenue due not offset by publicity. And unless that cost is greater than the value of one famous pundit, it's simply not economical to listen to women's concerns, as expressed by this formula:
I understand that some of you women might be asking the irrational, overly emotional question: "Why are profits more important than protecting women?" Well, first of all, shame on you for doubting the infinite wisdom of businessmen. They are able to use logic and reasoning without being burdened by the irrational, feminine concepts of "ethics" and "workplace law." Do you really want to open that can of tampons?
That's the way the Lords of Business have made other unquestionably smart business decisions, like the cost-benefit analysis that auto-manufacturers run to determine the cost of fixing their exploding cars vs. the cost of lawsuits after turning people into fried road-putty. Their math wizards have done their sorcery, and I'm sorry to report that they've discovered a human life is only worth about $200,000. It isn't them; it's just a scientific fact. Human dignity and respect is worth even less, but their value is so small that we still don't have accurate estimates.