- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Help with riddle - How Much Money Did The Store Lose?
Posted on 12/12/23 at 6:36 pm to Zoroaster
Posted on 12/12/23 at 6:36 pm to Zoroaster
quote:Agreed. The question is effective because it manages to bog people down with clutter that isn't useful while subtly altering the way people approach it by presenting it as theft.
That's a different item from the inventory with its own potential profit margin.
In any case, this has been a fun thought exercise
Replace the word 'theft' with 'give' and I don't think as many people would have trouble with it:
"A store gives a man a gift certificate for $100 and he purchases $70 in goods and receives $30 in change. How much did it cost the store?"
In both scenarios the person is shopping with $100 of 'house money', in both scenarios the math is the same, in both scenarios there are the same profit margins and labor costs. The only difference is one of them comes with moral baggage. But morality doesn't change math.
This post was edited on 12/12/23 at 6:40 pm
2
Posted on 12/12/23 at 7:21 pm to Corinthians420
quote:
only if they run out of stock before the next customer comes in to buy said item.
Geez, dude
How do you not comprehend that the store can never recover the profit from the original items with their stolen money??
They can certainly reorder those items, but the profit received is only for the re-ordered items. Not the original "stolen" items. They will NEVER recover the original profit. It simply walked out the door, along with their $30 in change. So it doesnt matter what the costs of goods were. That profit vanished. Along with the costs of the original "stolen" goods
Get it, now?
Posted on 12/12/23 at 8:32 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
. They will NEVER recover the original profit. It simply walked out the door, along with their $30 in change. So it doesnt matter what the costs of goods were. That profit vanished. Along with the costs of the original "stolen" goods
Get it, now?
this only has to do with the fact that a store can never LOSE $70 on an item that does not cost them $70 to stock.
I'll make it simpler for you. If I own a store and put an empty beer can on the shelf and put the price at $5,000 and someone walks in and steals it, how much did I lose?
did I lose $5,000? no
I lost however much it cost me to get that beer can and put it on the shelf.
This post was edited on 12/12/23 at 8:36 pm
Posted on 12/12/23 at 8:45 pm to Corinthians420
quote:
did I lose $5,000? no
Of course you do
Can I then walk in and buy that same can? NO. So that profit is gone forever, because that item is gone forever. You can sale another empty can, and all you do is prove that someone is willing to pay $5K for a can. So the store did lose $5K from the stolen can, right? RIGHT?
Posted on 12/12/23 at 8:48 pm to RobbBobb
Nope. My losses would only be the cost of the can. The other $5K would be unrealized gains
Posted on 12/12/23 at 9:03 pm to Corinthians420
In the words of Muddy Waters
You Can't Lose What You Ain't Never Had
You Can't Lose What You Ain't Never Had
Posted on 12/12/23 at 9:05 pm to Corinthians420
quote:This is a good way to phrase it.
My losses would only be the cost of the can. The other $5K would be unrealized gains
Posted on 12/12/23 at 9:07 pm to Corinthians420
quote:How much did the store lose? I didn't start reading the thread until a couple of pages ago so I never saw your answer. Do you mind sharing it again? Asking because one of the first posts I read accused you of destroying your own arguments, which seems to be the case here based on the comments that I have read.
Nope. My losses would only be the cost of the can. The other $5K would be unrealized gains
This post was edited on 12/12/23 at 9:09 pm
Posted on 12/12/23 at 9:17 pm to Corinthians420
You can definitely tell the business folks in this thread vs cashiers 
Posted on 12/12/23 at 9:18 pm to Seaux_cal_tiger
It depends on what the price of a weave and 3 pounds of crawfish tales cost.
Not to mention you have to account for if self checkout lanes were used.
Moral of the story: fukc a thief in the arse with a petrified cactus.
Not to mention you have to account for if self checkout lanes were used.
Moral of the story: fukc a thief in the arse with a petrified cactus.
Posted on 12/12/23 at 9:18 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
How much did the store lose?
the store lost $30 cash + the cost of replacing whatever item the thief purchased with $70.
Posted on 12/12/23 at 9:19 pm to Corinthians420
quote:
the store lost $30 cash + the cost of replacing whatever item the thief purchased with $70.
Posted on 12/12/23 at 9:23 pm to 21JumpStreet
quote:
You can definitely tell the business folks in this thread vs cashiers
It's wild to me that people can't comprehend that the store doesn't have the same amount of markup on every item in the store.
If the thief walked out with $30 + something that I purchased for $7 and marked up 1000%, I obviously lost less than if they walked out with $30 + something that I paid $69 for and marked up 1.5%
Posted on 12/12/23 at 9:43 pm to Corinthians420
quote:I comprehend that just fine. I find that nugget irrelevant, and if you are claiming the store lost $100, or even less, you haven't been very clear and your arguments have been all over the place in conveying that. In any case, we seem to be in agreement. The store lost $100 (at most).
It's wild to me that people can't comprehend that the store doesn't have the same amount of markup on every item in the store.
Posted on 12/12/23 at 9:58 pm to northshorebamaman
Yep that's pretty much it
Posted on 12/12/23 at 10:04 pm to Corinthians420
quote:You've got a couple piggy-backers that are going to be disappointed that you've been trying to make the opposite point they think you are making.
Yep that's pretty much it
Have a good night. I always appreciate guys that can keep it civil.
Posted on 12/13/23 at 11:00 am to Corinthians420
quote:
The other $5K would be unrealized gains
Fancy words for admitting that you lost your own argument
Everything on the planet is unrealized gains until you sell them. Since the store doesnt have those items any longer, they can never 'realize' those gains. Plus, to re-order the exact same items only adds debt
So even using your logic, they lost 2X the costs of the goods, plus the $30 change. Once because those items can never be sold, and twice because those items need to be replaced. Re-supply is the only way for the store to be restored to the they were prior to the fraudulent purchase
Posted on 12/13/23 at 11:06 am to RobbBobb
quote:
Everything on the planet is unrealized gains until you sell them. Since the store doesnt have those items any longer, they can never 'realize' those gains. Plus, to re-order the exact same items only adds debt
What? They sold the item. The $100 was already stolen. Why would selling it to the thief make them never realize those gains if selling to a regular customer would.
The only reason the store didn't lose the full $100 is because the thief used it at their store to buy something so they got a percentage back based on how much the items he bought were marked up
quote:
So even using your logic, they lost 2X the costs of the goods, plus the $30 change. Once because those items can never be sold, and twice because those items need to be replaced. Re-supply is the only way for the store to be restored to the they were prior to the fraudulent purchase
You aren't making any sense.
quote:
Once because those items can never be sold
The item was sold at its normal price.
The thief stole the money and bought the item. If they wouldve stole the money and then stole the item you would've lost $100+cost of item. Instead you lost $30+cost of item
This post was edited on 12/13/23 at 11:18 am
Posted on 12/13/23 at 12:54 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
in both scenarios the math is the same
Actually, I disagree. While accountants might quibble on the cost of goods sold involved in the gift certificate scenario, that is an accounting exercise.
The discussion of the loss under the theft scenario is a legal one since that involves what was taken.
The legal loss was $100.
This post was edited on 12/13/23 at 1:00 pm
Posted on 12/13/23 at 1:08 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Replace the word 'theft' with 'give' and I don't think as many people would have trouble with it:
"A store gives a man a gift certificate for $100 and he purchases $70 in goods and receives $30 in change. How much did it cost the store?"
What is the net loss to a store if someone uses a counterfeit $100 bill to purchase a $70 product with a cost of $50 and gets $30 in change back?
Page 15 of 16
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News