/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9596231
$100

>>9596231

duh 2 hundo dollar

>>9596231
$100

>>9596241
>>9596244
hahahahha

>>9596241
>>9596247
LOL

lady walks away with 70 bucks of stuff and 30 bucks
therefore the dude lost 100 bucks

>>9596255

>>9596231
The owner loses 30 dollars in hard cash and 70 dollars in fraudulently-acquired goods, for a total of 100 dollars.

>>9596264

>>9596261

>>9596255
>>9596264
I'm consistently disappointed every time I visit this board.

>>9596273
why don't you tell us, exactly how much money do you think the owner lost, and what's your thought process behind it?

100 + cost to replace stolen goods + money he could have made while serving her

>>9596273
Because we get the answer right quickly and you don't get to act superior to us.

>>9596306
>doubles your shrinkage.
At least this brainlet doesn't work in accounting.

>>9596311

$100

They loses the original $100, then get it back in exchange for $70 stuff and $30 change.

In total the shoplifter took $100 cash, then $70 stuff and $30 cash for a total of $200, but they gave the shop keeper back $100 making it a net loss of $100.

Am I wrong?

>>9596300
don't reveal the answer. I actually wanna see how many of you here are actual brainlets lol

>>9596322
You're not incorporating the emotional costs associated with theft: these cannot be so accurately quantified.

>>9596244
>>9596249
>>9596261
>>9596267
>>9596273
>>9596306
>>9596319
we need a purge

>>9596327

>>9596327
actually, it's something less than $100 loss because the owner profits from the $70 goods "sold", but that isn't an option

>>9596231
Depends, if the customer was a minority the owner in fact gained utility by reducing his priveledge.

At the end of the day when he's doing inventory and counting the register he'll notice he's short $100 but all inventory is accounted for.

Anyone who says otherwise is wrong.

>>9596231
Not as much as you think because if he is selling the goods for 70 he paid less than 70 for them.

it says don't overthink it in all caps and here we are debating possible emotional costs...

ITT: OP pretends that the correct answer is wrong to troll people.

>>9596349
Well, his profit margin isn't given in the problem, so the lost sales price is the next closest accurate number.

>>9596563
>implying emotional trauma is irrelevant

It just reminded me of how I pondered just how fucking cheap consumer goods really have to be.
Last week I stopped at gas station to take a leak, they had a chocolate I like to chow down every now and then, only they sold it for double the price I get at my local grocery store. That grocery store has to sell it for enough money to bankroll three shop clerks, owner, pay the taxes and buy another fucking chocolate.
That store didn't buy it from the factory, hell no, it was bought from another bigger store, which also didn't buy it from a factory, because the chocolate is foreign, so they bought it from some dealer chain, which bought it from the factory, which also has people with salaries and owners and taxes.
I also like those price comparison websites where you can see eshops selling same product at double, triple or even fucking quadruple markup over the competition, yet people seemingly still do business with them.

the guy loses $30 and $70 worth of goods

>>9596602
yes. he loses what she gained. Her net gain was not $100, it was $30 plus a bunch of crap with a retail price of $70.
The problem doesn't state how much was his cost-of-goods sold.
The problem also doesn't state whether he lost any additional money if her purchase prevented someone else from buying the same type of item before he could replenish his inventory.

2/3

F) $200

If I'm a clever merchant I'm going use the loss to offset taxes on my other profits.

>>9596306
Yeah!

>>9596231
30 dollars

>>9596231
I assume 70 is retail price so how much did the shopkeeper pay for the goods?

>>9596231
Childhood is thinking the store owner lost $200.
Adolescence is thinking the store owner lost $100.
Adulthood is thinking the store owner lost $30 and the pre-markup value of the $70 goods purchased.
Enlightenment is realizing that the store owner actually gained money from this transaction.

>>9597517
this, the insurance payout and the free advertising from the news coverage is worth way more than the 100 bucks he lost

>>9597527
>news coverage of shoplifting

lmao what

$70

$30

>>9596231
>Please don't embarrass yourselves.

>>9596231
How much what? profit? money?

$30 + the value of the goods

this has nothing to do with how smart you are, the question is just not clear so there are more than 1 correct answers.
>>9597571

>>9597572
This. She /paid/ $70 for the goods, but that isn't necessarily the actual price that the owner paid for the goods.

>>9597577
That doesn't matter because the owner would have made $70 by selling the goods to someone else. The value of the goods to the owner was $70.

>>9596231
Everything after the person leaves with the $100 is irrelevant.

>>9597579
That doesn't change his direct losses in this scenario.

>>9596609
That`s completly irrelevant, though. His lose is $70 + $30, since that is what he could have made had he sold it to someone else, plus the change.

Everyone who doesn't answer 100$ didn't finish school.

>>9596231
He lost 30 dollars. If she stole 100 and gave 70 back, he lost 30 dollars.

>>9597622
Plus:
But that's only for money. She got the amount of goods(if you want the full amount).

>>9597594
Anyone who doesn't answer 800+ never worked at a store.

>>9596231
Let's say the owner has $500 at the start

Scenario 1:
>loses $100 from robbery
owner now has $400
>lady comes back and pays $70
owner now has 470

Scenario 2:
>Lady pays 70$
owner now has $570

There's a $100 difference, which means he lost $100

Well, wat was his profit margin on the goods?

But yeah, 100$

>>9596575
The answer is everything. She's not charging taxes on these goods and the local law enforcement catch on shortly.

>>9596622
Kek'd

$60, but in reality with sales tax and the fact that the owner made far less than $70 in profit from her purchase, closer to $90

about 3.50$

-1/12

Ok the owner has a total of 170$ in capital and currency. 100 is stolen so now only 70 dollars in capital is owned by the owner. Then 70 in capital is converted to 70 in currency (assuming no tax) when the 100 dollar bill is used to purchase it. In the end the owner of the goods only has 70 in currency. Now the net loss was 100 dollars, but you could argue there is a fee in converting capital to currency so I'm just gonna say 100.

Step 1: Lose $100
Step 2: Receive $100
Step 3: Lose $70
Step 4: Lose $30

-100+100-70-30=100

The store lost $100.

>this thread
>again

>>9597591
But you have no idea if he would have sold all his inventory, let alone at full price. You can either say the problem doesn't have enough information to solve, or sidestep the issue entirely and say that the proprietor lost $30 + $70 in goods.

>>9596231
30 dollars and 70 follars worth of goods.

He lost the value of the goods and 30 dollars. Goods could be worth more or less than 70 dollars (supermarkets for example sell soda at a loss to attract customers)

>>9596231
E. Lost his hundo bill, lost his 70 bucks of products.

>>9596231
The whole part about her coming in to buy shit is irrelevant if we are not meant to overthink it. $100.

It's obvious that he lost 30 dollars and some indeterminate amount. What he lost is what she gained, she left with some goods and 30 dollar bill.

>>9596349
We can't know this, it depends on whether the woman would have bought the item without stealing or not, if she would have, the only difference is that $100 is stolen.

>>9598817
if after stealing the $100 she went to another shop and spent it there, that would have been worse for the owner, and he looses exactly $100 in this case
the owner is better off with her returning, so he loses less than $100

what she would have done without stealing it is another can of worms, but i see it unlikely that she'd buy the same stuff even if she had the money

>>9596231
$100 minus the profit from whatever she bought, assuming it wouldn't have been sold otherwise.

>>9597591
she didn't take out $70 + $30, she took out $30 worth of currency and shoplifted items carrying a retail price of $70
His store has the $70 cash

>>9598910
No, the shrink will only occur on the books at the register. That cashier is getting fired 100% and that is the real opportunity cost. The CSfag because he can't even manage a register.

>>9598914
says nothing about a cashier. it says the owner gave her $30 in change, so that means it was the owner being in charge of running the cash register. sounds like the owner was trying to multi-task and didn't pay attention to the cash register while doing something else.
The store is better off having her come back and spend $70 dollars instead of losing the $100 at the casino, so they lost something less than $100 and more than $30 depending on the sales tax and the cost of good sold

>>9596255
i hate this board

The register is at least $100 short and CSfag is fired. Their losses would be greater, but owner learns a valuable lesson about who to hire and who not to hire. You can say he was behind the times.

>>9596231
he loses $100, then the $70 item, then another $30, so $200, F

Is everyone taking the piss ITT?

Literally $30, you brainlets.

Another thread said 60 is correct, but i dont see how.

Does nobody understand that the question is not defined enough to give a straight answer? What the fuck is 'lost'? If you exchange money for goods, do you 'lose' money? Are we supposed to measure just the cash in register or take price of goods into account?

>>9596231
Owner:
>Has 100 cash, 70 goods: 170 total
bitch steals 100
>Owner now has 70
bitch buys dollars worth of goods with 100 dollar bill, owner gives 30 back
>Owner now has 100-30=70 money and zero goods
>170-70=100
So why does the post say not to overthink it? Because you retards are /math/fags and anyone with basic econ education knows that no one makes profit in a store exchange if you don't consider the buying price of the item.

>>9601675
dont overthink it ;)

>>9596231
$100 plus the cost of goods she bought with the money she stole.

>>9601782
Fuck, no. The owner lost $30 overall, plus the cost of the goods the woman bought with the stolen $70.

The answer is $100.

>>9601747
thissssss

It depends on how we interpret the question.
If this store is owned by a single individual and all sales impact the owners personal finances while all products being sold at cost. Then by giving away $70 worth of product and $30 of cash would be a sum loss of $100. While if this was a franchise let's say where stolen products and amount of sales do not impact the owners personal finances then by this we could say the 'owner' personally lost no money it was the store which lost money. We could also probably find other solutions that fall somewhere in between.

Answer is $100. The question isn't vague or whatever, you're all just retarded.

>>9596231
$130 cash
$70 worth of product

>>9596231
*owner's*

>>9601675
The price of the goods was obviously $70. What the fuck is wrong with you?

>>9601849
Cost of goods sold =/= cost of sold goods

cogs are usually < cosg

>>9601865
see
>>9601747
by the way, thats not always true. some products sell at a loss because they are necessary for the companies assets. for example google homes.

>>9601908
>sperg fails test because multiple choice doesn't account for beef commodity derivatives

>>9601675

Try it differently. The lady walks back in with the stolen $100, then walks back out with buying anything. Obviously the owner lost $100.

On the other hand she walks in and buys $100 worth of items. The owner has his $100 back but is out $100 worth of stuff. So again he's lost $100.

Since the transaction is a linear exchange, the amount he lost must be a linear function of the amount she spends in store. Since it equals $100 at two points, it must equal $100 no matter how much she spends.

Therefore the shop owner lost $100.

Dark Matter is the scientific equivalent of Enron cooking the books

100 dollars if we assume the goods are worth their price

>>9598928
No. The owner lost $70 worth in goods and $30 in change to get his $100 back;
-$100 stolen
+$100 paid for by the woman
-$70 lost in goods (lost as in no longer aviable for sale. The worth of the goods here is the selling price, for obvious reasons)
-$30 change
---------
-$100 net lose
Probaly a bit more in the real world, since he still has to pay taxes on these sold products, but since that isn`t given in the question we can assume a tax rate of 0%.

>>9596231
Money is fungible. Her coming back and overpaying for $70 worth of goods is completely irrelevant because it's an indistinguishable event from any other legitimate customer doing the same.

Indeed, at that point she actually IS a legitimate customer. The crime already took place in the past and now she's just exchanging cash for goods. So if her transaction counts (regardless of how much she overpays or how much change she gets) then so does every other transaction the owner has ever made with anyone since founding the store. There's not enough information to answer that interpretation of the question, so the most reasonable assumption is that it's asking how much the owner lost to theft, in which case it is a $100 bill and only a $100 bill.

>>9601865
>What is cost of opportunity

The owner could had sold those goods for $70, so if the lady took them he literally lost $70

>>9596231
100$ minus profit made from sale

>>9596602

>>9601947
>winner, winner chicken dinner