The big numbers in that article worked out to only $15.25/hour per worker. That didn't seem to be consistent with the lauditory tone of the article.
And that was my point about the meaning of "is". Really, from that article, you are looking at what "was".
From an investor POV, that's useless. What really counts, for an investor, is what will be compared to today's valuations.
And I felt like using Bill Clinton's line, to the question, "Is there a ... relationship with Ms. Lewinsky." Or something like that.
He could have said, "There was one, there isn't one, and there will not be one in the future."
But Clinton didn't act like me, and say, "Do you want to reread or reconsider your question?"
For whatever reasons he had, including perhaps expectations of his comments being replayed on TV forever, or in another pending case, he chose to say, "It depends on what the meaning of "is" is." That so unnerved the prosecutor (or whoever), that he didn't follow up with the obvious question, "Was there ....."?
It actually was a smart response, and worked effectively, in that short-term predicament. |
