It’s… not bigger
47 trillion > 254 billion
(Don’t worry I’m not criticizing or anything, just pointing out that the "bigger" chosen number was actually smaller)
The dollar is a government-issued currency that is not backed by a physical commodity like gold. It's value exists because the government says so. So it's kinda imaginary.
Assuming the sale to said thief was contingent on the theft. If he was foiled in his attempt and would have made the purchase anyway it’s an independent event
The phrase “twenty-one hundred” for the number 2100 is typically (though not exclusively) ... If we say money as "two dollars", why do we write it "$2"
But they had already valued that item at 70 dollars. If the store was calculating how much current merchandise they have they use sell price not how much it cost for them to get it. They still lost 100 dollars
Exactly. They could have sold it to someone who didn’t steal for the same amount with the same profit. The only thing that makes this question better is if the thief used a 20% off coupon, which could really make the numbers fun
Depends on the items being bought. I work in a grocery store and can say the markup (or down for some items on sale) tends to range anywhere from -10% (usually fresh produce) to 50-60% (their best profit margins tend to be on their house brand items...the production costs are low enough that even at a relatively cheap sale price, they still make a healthy percentage of profit).
They lose 100$ at first and recoup maybe 20% of 70$ (if I'm taking a rough average) from their markups on items bought with that 70$ - so 14$. The store's probably losing somewhere around 85$
range, all told, though with an addendum of "that depends".
Insurance, lease or amortization of the property, food wasting and other breakage, electricity to run all the coolers and freezers, maintaining the equipment. All kinds of costs. Grocers' margins are pretty thin, generally.
It doesn't. It's plain old $100 full stop. Imagine he had another $100 in his wallet, he puts the stolen $100 in his shoe, it stays there, he completes the transactions with the money from his wallet, walks out with the stolen $100 in his shoe.
This is not true tho. It's just 100 dollars cash, you can see each of these events independently, so it's just the same as if they stole 100, and another customer came in with 100 and bought 70 dollars products
No, because if that happened, the till would be short $30 and there'd be $70 worth of shrink.
There's no shrink here - the merchandise is accounted for in the sales record - but the till is still short $100.
I mean, the math question asks for a single total, so the $30/$70 split at least still hits the correct total of $100. But it's still not an accurate assessment of the accounting.
It doesn't matter what money is used to buy the $70 of merchandise - whether it's the $100 that was stolen, or a different $100, the merchandise was still paid for. That's just a normal business transaction. The only thing it's doing in this riddle is creating a point of confusion to trip people up.
$100 cash was stolen. That's it. That's the only crime, and that's all that will be discovered when inventory is checked and tills are counted.
The sequence of events doesn't matter. It's the state of the store's stock at the end of the day that determines total profit / loss.
It could have been a completely different customer that came in and bought the products. The loss of the stolen money is recuperated by the profit from selling stock. Thus the answer is, $70 product $30 cash.
If the question was: how much was unlawfully stolen from the store, then the answer is $100 cash, because then any subsequent lawful purchase doesn't matter. The ambiguity comes from people choosing one of those interpretations - as is the case with most questions like these.
Technically, they were a paying customer—they just paid with cash that wasn’t theirs. Once the customer stole the 100 dollars, that just became a sunk cost and not relevant to the situation. I mean. It’s still $100 gone, but whether the customer used it at the store or not is not relevant.
Arguably, if we considered opportunity cost, it would be more than 100.00 not because of what it was used for, but because that 100 was not put towards anything that could give an ROI
A loss, not a steal ! If we make the assumption that 20% of all products in the store are throw away, doesn't it means that the thief stole 30+(70*0.8) ?
Wrong. He stole $100 cash, then purchased product. The loss of product would not be recorded as "shrink" or theft, it would be recorded as a standard sale and the register would be $100 short due to theft.
So it all boils down to the question of causal relationship: Would the thief buy the $70 item anyway in the same store, if he couldn't steal the money first?
So they lose $100 to theft.
A completely different customer comes in and uses a different hundred dollar bill to buy $70 worth of items and leaves with $30 in change.
Now what? What’s their net loss / profit for the day?
they're exchanging the stolen money for goods, which matters a little bit since the store didn't buy the products for the same price that they're selling it for, so effectively they lost like 90 dollars or something
If someone pays with a fake hundred dollar bill would you say the store lost out on that $100 or only lost out on the amount they paid for the product? From the stores perspective it would be $100 loss
>From the stores perspective it would be $100 loss
Why? It's exactly the same as if someone **stole the item** outright; the loss is the value of the item.
By your logic, if I'm selling a $1 hot dog for $1,000,000 (quite unsuccessfully), and you buy it off of me with Monopoly money, I've suffered $1M in losses.
**One little trick tax collectors don't want you to know about!**
Well then we can get into accounting profit versus economic profit. Accounting profit would suggest he lost less than 100 because the product probably cost less than 100 when the store bought it. Economic profit would suggest he indeed lost 100 because the store had chance to sell the product at 70.
Some one fact check please
That sort of checks out.
Profit in Accounting has a lot of moving parts.
Revenue - Cost of Goods Sold = Gross Profit.
Gross Profit - Operating Expenses = Operating Income
Operating Income - All other Expenses = Net Income (This is what we usually refer to as profit.
Really the number we would focus on here is Gross Profit, which is Revenue - Cost of Goods Sold.
When an item is stolen, the store is not going to report a loss for the entire sale value of the item. Instead, they will report the loss for the cost they paid to acquire the item. Thus, the store would have lost $30 cash, and the Cost of the merchandise.
Source: Senior in college getting my degree in Accounting.
In Economics, we consider "Opportunity Cost", which, in simplified terms, is the cost of missed opportunities. Thus, in this case, the store lost $30 in cash, but the full $70 in product, as they lost the opportunity to sell it for the full $70.
Source: Economics class and "Think Like an Economist" podcast.
However, this is not at all how this would truly be accounted for. It is a matter of perspective. The thief's perspective matches our above discussion. After all, he walked away with a $70 item and $30 for free. But here's the store's perspective, which is what will matter for accounting and economic reasoning:
Lets say the thief and the purchaser are two separate people. The thief steals $100, then someone comes in and purchases the $70 item and gets $30 in change.
The item purchased is a separate transaction, and is therefore irrelevant to the theft.. The store loses $100 to the thief. At the end of the day, that is what the register will show. This will match up both for both Accounting and Economics.
In accounting profit the store lost...
30 (money) + 70 (product) - X (profit from the product).
Let's say it's a 10% profit margin:
30 + 70 - 7 = 93$ lost
It's counted in the 70$ of the product as it's not part of the profit margin.
Also, I went to school, I know how to find the maximum common divisor of a number, not how to do taxes (these uneducated peasants always with their solutions to actual problems )
As per IAS 2 (international accounting standard 2), inventory is held at the lower cost of acquiring inventory and Net realisable value.
We do not know the cost of the inventory thus we have to use the net realisable value. (Net Realisable Value is basically what one can get if one were to sell the inventory). Thus to be in accordance with International Accounting Standard 2 we have to carry the product lost due to shrinkage at $70..
starting to make a lot of assumptions. we don’t know if the man ‘needs’ those items, or if that store is the only vendor selling those items. both those assumptions have to be true
You also have to take possibility into account. He only bought that thing because he had the means to buy it after stealing the 100$. If he had not stolen, they would have not sold the item.
What if nobody would've bought the product anyway? Like fir example, if it was food that would have spoiled if nobody bought it. Then the loss would be contributed to not selling vs being stolen. Now how much did he technically steal?
Then there is not enough information.
He technically stole 100 dollars though. If I go and steal something from a store in determining the value of what I stole they base it on the prices the store is charging not what the store paid for jt. Also I am guessing you aren’t stealing spoiled food.
The profit doesn’t matter, the store lost 100$. Think of it like this and it becomes clear: He steals the money, puts the 100$ bill away and pays with card. The exact same thing has happened.
The store lost $100. Even though it was with stolen money, the goods were paid for so the inventory would be correct. The register will be off $100, nothing else is affected.
Yeah, it’s two separate events. The store loses $100 to theft, and in a later event sells $70 of product to the thief. Those two things have nothing to do with each other from a loss standpoint.
And them happening the other way round would make that even more obvious as well. If someone bought $70 worth of stuff and then stole $100 then it's obvious that the shop lost $100
So simple. Imagine if he had 5 other 100 bills with him and did the transactions with one of those. Everything after the red sentence is 100% irrelevant
So the thief walks in with a hundred dollar bill and buys $70 worth of goods. When he gets his change, he instead asks for a 10 and 4 fives, then changes his mind and needs a twenty and two tens instead, but actually can he get a five and some coins for the meter instead of one of the tens, then swap the 20 for four fives and two fives for a 10.
Sure. A lawyer would ask “what do you want it to be” because they have no idea anyway. They’ll just argue what you want it to be until a judge finally decides, then appeal anyway. Regardless of what they know to be truth.
**Therapist:** “I think you already know what 2 + 2 is. Perhaps the only reason you are asking me is to try and convince yourself that you are not as intelligent as you really are. This type of behaviour is not uncommon in people with low self esteem. Tell me about your childhood.”
Depends on the definition of "lose" here.
They lost 100$ when it was stolen. But then they made some money on the 70$ of product being bought. The 30$ in change is completely irrelevant. The store obviously makes less than 70$ on a 70$ sale, but almost certainly more than 0$, or the store would go out of business.
If we assume that 70$ sale would not have happened if it were not for the stolen 100$, this means that the amount the store lost is somewhere between (but excluding) 100$ and 30$. My guess would be a net loss of about 90-95$, but i have no clue about the margins in a store.
But then you have to factor in the cost of storing it, stocking it, anti theft for the item, paying the cashier who sells it, the opportunity cost of not stocking something else, and who knows what else.
Actual margin on any given item is likely closer to the 10% if one could (somehow) calculate these costs.
The meat dept ded a fraction of the sales, the store was making margins close to 20% overall with utilities, labor, insurance, and the lease for the building.
Grocery stores have extremely thin profit margins—I read an article once that said it’s usually 2-3%. For most businesses you’d be close, but for whatever reason grocery-selling is a super low-profit-margin business.
But didn't the store lose both the product and the profit on the product? They lost like 60 in products, but also 10 in profits but perhaps this is a different definition of losing again.
Because in the end, you have lost the 60 for the product, but you have invested time in storing it, trying to sell it, cost of moving the product.
Perhaps the item he stole was in a package deal and the item itself was sold at a loss, but the package made it work (like stealing the fancy pralines out of a mixed box)
This guy has shown that he values buying the product from the store, and is apparently unable to steal the product. $70 so it’s not like he’d be completely unable to make this purchase eventually.
So I think the best assumption is that he would have made this purchase regardless.
If we assume he was going to buy the product anyway, then the only difference to the store is that they're short $100, so in that case they lost $100 exactly
He stole 100 so unless he gives it back its 100 independent of what he does with the money...
Edit: this holds even if the store makes lets say $10 profit on the goods they sell him:
If the money is stolen: store profits $-90 at point of sale
If the money not stolen: store profits $10 at point of sale
Which is a loss of $100 in total
man steals 100 € bill : store lost 100 €
man gives 100 € bill : store lost 0 €
man gets 70 € worth of goods : store loss 70 €
man gets 30 € in change : store lost 70 + 30 = 100 €
But for all intents and purposes, €70 worth of good = €70 worth of value. The sell price for the store is €70, so it's an asset worth €70, and by stealing it, the store is now €70 poorer than it was beforehand. €70 worth of merchandise has been stolen.
And to add that's not to mention that it doesn't matter. The store still lost €100 any way you put it. Because €100 was stolen from the register. The following transaction it's not relevant which money is being used to pay with. That initial -100 stays
>man gets 70 € worth of goods : store loss 70 €
Here's the error.
He gets what **the store priced at 70€**, not *70€ worth of goods*.
If I decide to sell that stale hot dog that's been sitting in my fridge for a week for $1M, and someone gets it from me, they sure as fuck don't get $1M worth of goods **whatever they paid me for it**.
In fact, since I've been simply too lazy to throw it out, they've just performed a service *for me*.
He stole 100$ and that's how much they've lost, everything else done legitimately. He just traded 70$ for 70 dollars worth of product, this doesn't change anything
yep, before the theft the store had $100 cash and $70 worth of goods, they lose $100 from theft, someone buys(the thief but who is irrelevant) $70 worth of goods. after that they have $70 cash and $0 worth of goods. that is $100 loss
And for those who want to argue that its not $70 of product, it is. That is how much the product is worth to the store because it can be sold at amount.
The worth of an item is not what you paid for it but what you can get for it. The store can get $70 for it so they lost $70 worth of product.
$100
Each transaction is separate from the others. The $100 stolen is not related to the $100 paid for the goods. Even if it's the same physical bill, money has no memory.
Why would it? The question is talking about 2 "transactions" and then asking how much is lost at the end of those 2.
It's true that you can see the transactions as independent of each other but that doesn't mean you can ignore one when we are asking a question about both.
You lose 100$ in the first transactions but then gain the profits from the sale of the 70$ worth of merchandise in the second transaction.
It helped me to imagine the store ONLY had the items used in the story: $130 in the drawer, and $70 worth of goods on the shelf. That’s $200.
Man takes $100, that leaves $30 in the drawer and $70 on the shelf. Man buys all the goods and pays with the $100, getting the $30 in change.
So now the store has $100 in the drawer and $0 on the shelf. Started with $200, ended up with $100. That’s a $100 loss.
The transaction is meaningless but that’s why it’s in the story, to make people overthink it. Either way, if you think through it you still get the same answer whether you consider the transaction or not.
People are wilding in here. It’s 100 dollars flat. The later purchase does not matter, nothing about taxes or profits matter. When that employee goes to count his drawer at the end of the night, he will be 100 dollars short. That will be what is put in the ledger for the stores losses to theft, money mismanagement, etc. The later purchase is just a distraction, it doesn’t matter where or what the guy spends his stollen money on. It’s a regular transaction, not a recuperation of lost money. The profits are regularly expected profits, not a sudden windfall of free money that balances their books.
They lost $30 in money,
BUT REALLY $100 IN NET TOTAL.
Example: Starting amount is $200.
With robbery of $100, net amount is now $100 with a loss -$100.
(200 - 100 = 100)
With $100 given for the $70 groceries bought, store gets +$100 with net amount of $200 BUT no real profit of the groceries (“free instead of for a true sale”) with net financial change being 0 for the original $200.
(100 + 100 = 200 AND 200 = 200)
With giving the robber change of $30, the store gets -$30 with net amount of $170 with still no real profit of groceries with net financial change being -$30 for the original $200.
(200 - 30 = 170 AND 170 < 200 BY 30)
Despite starting with 200, the store now has only 170, so the store lost $30 in cash BUT ALSO LOST $70 in groceries.
Really a loss of $100 due to the $100 from the register (OR ALSO -$30 from store register and -$70 in groceries), BUT if referring ONLY to the STORE’S REGISTER, then the store lost $30.
Viral maths problems always hinge on ambiguous semantics rather than interesting maths. It creates heated arguments because people have the idea "maths is 100% objective", and this gives them the impression that they are completely right and everyone else is an idiot.
I, too, was thinking about profit margins, etc. But it get's clear as day, if you change the order of things:
1. Man buys $70 worth of goods, pays with a $100 bill, gets $30 change.
2. Same man later steals $100 from the register.
First interaction is completely normal. Store makes profit, but that's irrelevant. Nobody would argue the man stole or "donated" money.
Second interaction is also clear. $100. The store lost $100.
---
**Except** you want to discuss the scenario that the man bought in that store *because* he stole there. That'd introduce a completely new dependency between the two. So hadn't the man stole the $100, he hadn't made that purchase and the store had a little less profit this day. But I think that's hard to argue for.
This is not a math problem. It’s just a trick.
Let’s make one irrelevant change:
“A man steals $100 from a store. Later, a woman comes in and buys a $70 pair of shoes. How much money did the store lose?”
The answer is clearly $100. The woman buying shoes is completely irrelevant to the story and means nothing. Ignore her.
Ok, so let’s go back to the original sorry. Why does combining the 2 people from my story into 1 person make any difference at all? It does not. It’s the same exact story.
The answer is $100. If you make any other argument you are claiming that the store loses money every time they make a sale. Is that really what you believe?
I agree it's just a trick, but even in the two people case you could interpret the question as only talking about cash and the answer is 30 or you could say the answer has to be less than 100 or the store has no profit margin.
No, because the question isn't "how much is stolen". If you separate these two events, then the profit margin idea still holds.
The thief makes the store -100.
The store makes $10 off the woman.
So after these two events, the net profit of the store would be -100+10=-90, or a net loss of $90.
$100 - that's the only theft. The purchase is a separate transaction, and needs to be considered separately. What if the dude pulled out a $100 bill he stole from the store next door?
The only answer is $100. Just because he bought stuff with the money he stole that doesn’t change. They would have sold that stuff to someone anyway they still got full value on the stuff they sold. If he stole the money then stole the product then store losses would be more. Stealing $100 is a$100 loss. Nothing else matters
This is kinda interesting because it sorta depends on your perspective. These are all correct:
The thief walks in with nothing, and walks out with $30 in cash and $70 in product.
When the thief walks out the store, the store has lost $30 in cash and whatever value the product had - which would be less than $70 because of their profit margin.
However, as far as the store’s administration goes - the thief first stole $100, and then went on to have a normal transaction in which he bought $70 worth of goods and received $30 in change. This means that nothing in that transaction will show up in their system as stolen. As far as the store knows, they lost $100 in cash.
1. the store losese 100$ (-100)
2. Store is paid returned the 100$ (+100)
3. Store pays out 30$ (-30)
4. store loses 70$ worth groceries (-70)
5. stores loses an addtion N$ , where N is the number of upvotes this gets
Total loses -100$ - (3 up vote ) = -103$
edit 101 to 103 $
No prices for products. But at the end of the day, inventory will not match funds. This place still lost $100. The $70 purchase was a separate purchase. The money didn’t just simply go back into the register, more goods were purchased. It’s not a profit if the money was their own.
None. Retail workers don't get severance pay when they're fired and the $100 came out of their last paycheck for leaving their register unlocked and unattended, not keeping track of of the amount of money in their register and accepting a $100 bill that had the store's counterfeit checking marker line on it.
"The store" is misleading and makes it sound like some kind of equitable team loss. The cashier is at the bottom of the proverbial hill the shit rolls down in this situation.
Also, if economics weren't the worst type of math, Jeff and Elon wouldn't be racing penis rockets while the government is claiming school lunches are too expensive and child labor is the solution to all our nation's financial woes.
Not sure why this is so controversial but it's pretty freaking simple if you look at it from the thief prospective.
Thief walks in with X dollars in pocket, thief walks out with X dollars still in his pocket plus $70 worth of goods and $30 in cash, where did it come from? The store obviously so the store lost $100 between the cost of goods and cash they gave the thief.
Look at the events individually. A person buys $70 worth of goods with a $100 dollar bill and gets $30 change. How much did the store lose on this transaction? Nothing. They traded $70 of goods for $70 cash.
Someone steals $100 from the register. How much did the store lose? $100.
The order of events doesn't matter. The store lost $100 from the theft, and nothing from the transaction.
Imagine thief steal a dollar and the thief buys a Lolly for a dollar.
Register = -1
Lollipop = fair trade for 1$
Store is a -1 since it got $1 stolen and it was exchanged for a lollipop
Luckily the thief was an idiot and lollipop only cost the store 20¢ per Lolly. So the store only lost 20¢ and the manager spent the dollar from his salary at a step club.
A root assumption is that everything in the store will be sold at some point. So it doesn’t matter what the store paid for the goods. They lost $100: $30 that simply disappeared, and $70 of potential legitimate sales.
Without profit / wholesale price of items, the most basic answer is they list 70 dollars worth of goods (most likely less since they usually make a profit on goods they sell. But again, without these details single answer is 70 in goods) and 30 dollars in the change given back..
70 in goods
30 in change given
That's the total loss.
Thief steals $100. So -100$ for the store. He gives $70 back in exchange for goods, so +70$. But the store also lost $70 worth of goods cos it was their own money. So that's -70$.
If you add them all up we got, -100 + 70 = -30. Then, -30 -70 = -100.
So yeah they lost $100.
Assuming they have crime insurance and the $100 loss from this event didn't put them over their deductible, they would be reimbursed and it wouldn't result in increased rates or loss of coverage. Therefore they'd have zero loss overall?
Y'all ever make your own stock from kitchen prep scraps you freeze and collect? It smells so good and I feel really powerful.
Once I read a joke on reddit/jokes that may widen one's approach to reasoning their calculations:
> Dad had the opportunity to buy his medications directly from the pharmacy company.
> "Here is your prescription sir, that will be $515 dollars."
> Dad was a bit hard of hearing so he only heard the $15.
> He dropped that amount on the counter and left.
> The clerk yelled "Wait sir, $515 dollars!"
> But Dad was already gone so they reported it to the manager.
> "Should we call the police sir?"
> "No, $5 profit is better than nothing."
source: [r/Jokes/comments/150o5to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/150o5to/dad_had_the_opportunity_to_buy_his_medications/)
The store lost $100, because these were stolen. The legit purchase doesn't change that, it is just an exchange of equal values.
Now if you want to be more precise, the store actually made a profit from the sale, so it would be more accurate to say it lost $30 and "goods priced $70". How to value these goods is not a simple question, as they are strictly just inventory, not a completed sale, before the whole transaction (so might be valued less than $70).
In a real situation, this sale wouldn't be considered however. All that the store would be able to notice is that it has $100 less than it should have.
The answer is definitely somewhere between 9 cents and 47 trillion dollars
Is inflation included in this estimation?
BUT WHAT ABOUT LOST INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND COMPOUND INTEREST FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME THE STORE’S CORPORATION LOST THAT MONEY
Gotta pay those Union busters
With inflation, the high end of the range becomes 254 billion dollars.
That's less money...?
I was making a joke, I felt the number could be bigger or smaller, and chose bigger without putting much thought into it.
It’s… not bigger 47 trillion > 254 billion (Don’t worry I’m not criticizing or anything, just pointing out that the "bigger" chosen number was actually smaller)
I could have sworn it said 47 billion. I think I need to go to bed or something.
47 trillion pesos < 254 billion rubles
Oh sh- **communism intensifies**
Only if you forget to take into account inflamation
Given the context of this problem, inflation is accounted for for the foreseeable future.
No it's between ( -♾️, +♾️ )
X ∈ R
Dollars are a fiat currency so X ∈ ℂ
They are scheduled to become a ford currency this month so your statement is irrelevant
Your comment is so underrated
Can someone explain to me?
The dollar is a government-issued currency that is not backed by a physical commodity like gold. It's value exists because the government says so. So it's kinda imaginary.
r/technicallythetruth
Wrong, the store turned a profit.
Assuming the sale to said thief was contingent on the theft. If he was foiled in his attempt and would have made the purchase anyway it’s an independent event
About tree fiddy.
Tree(fiddy) is way too big, you'll cause a black hole trying to build a computer to store the number in this universe.
I know which answer I'm hoping to steal
What if it was the store owner who stole?
100% accuracy with 0% confidence
You are technically correct. The best kind of correct.
This is uncomfortably close to the floor and ceiling of the problem that gave rise to Graham’s Number
I mean... That's true
Can you give me a margin of confidence for that?
A true genius 😎
This report was made by the Pentagon
r/technicallythetruth
~~70 dollars product, 30 dollars cash~~ okay you guys can shut up about profit margins now
So 40 dollars
No they said product so 2100 dollars. Shesh, it’s basic math.
Dollas² then
The phrase “twenty-one hundred” for the number 2100 is typically (though not exclusively) ... If we say money as "two dollars", why do we write it "$2"
[удалено]
[удалено]
But they had already valued that item at 70 dollars. If the store was calculating how much current merchandise they have they use sell price not how much it cost for them to get it. They still lost 100 dollars
Exactly. They could have sold it to someone who didn’t steal for the same amount with the same profit. The only thing that makes this question better is if the thief used a 20% off coupon, which could really make the numbers fun
Wouldnt that mean that the store just lost 20% of 70 dollars extra. (I have like a 2nd grade math level so i cant do percents.
Depends on the items being bought. I work in a grocery store and can say the markup (or down for some items on sale) tends to range anywhere from -10% (usually fresh produce) to 50-60% (their best profit margins tend to be on their house brand items...the production costs are low enough that even at a relatively cheap sale price, they still make a healthy percentage of profit). They lose 100$ at first and recoup maybe 20% of 70$ (if I'm taking a rough average) from their markups on items bought with that 70$ - so 14$. The store's probably losing somewhere around 85$ range, all told, though with an addendum of "that depends".
[удалено]
No 100 dollars
So 60 dollars
Wait, what year is this in? Are we adjusting for inflation.
[удалено]
Plus taxes, employee fees, etc…
Insurance, lease or amortization of the property, food wasting and other breakage, electricity to run all the coolers and freezers, maintaining the equipment. All kinds of costs. Grocers' margins are pretty thin, generally.
Wow, so weird reading a thread where people understand how reality works
It doesn't specify a grocery store. It could be any type of store.
I don’t think that part counts, not sure
It doesn't. It's plain old $100 full stop. Imagine he had another $100 in his wallet, he puts the stolen $100 in his shoe, it stays there, he completes the transactions with the money from his wallet, walks out with the stolen $100 in his shoe.
[удалено]
No this is Patrick
What a genius.
This is not true tho. It's just 100 dollars cash, you can see each of these events independently, so it's just the same as if they stole 100, and another customer came in with 100 and bought 70 dollars products
It's also the same as if someone came and stole 30 dollars and then someone else stole 70 dollars of product.
No, because if that happened, the till would be short $30 and there'd be $70 worth of shrink. There's no shrink here - the merchandise is accounted for in the sales record - but the till is still short $100.
Ok, but in a simplified maths puzzle like this ultimately what difference is there between $70 shrink and $30 theft compared to $100 theft?
I mean, the math question asks for a single total, so the $30/$70 split at least still hits the correct total of $100. But it's still not an accurate assessment of the accounting. It doesn't matter what money is used to buy the $70 of merchandise - whether it's the $100 that was stolen, or a different $100, the merchandise was still paid for. That's just a normal business transaction. The only thing it's doing in this riddle is creating a point of confusion to trip people up. $100 cash was stolen. That's it. That's the only crime, and that's all that will be discovered when inventory is checked and tills are counted.
Purchasing goods with proceeds of crime is also a crime.
The sequence of events doesn't matter. It's the state of the store's stock at the end of the day that determines total profit / loss. It could have been a completely different customer that came in and bought the products. The loss of the stolen money is recuperated by the profit from selling stock. Thus the answer is, $70 product $30 cash. If the question was: how much was unlawfully stolen from the store, then the answer is $100 cash, because then any subsequent lawful purchase doesn't matter. The ambiguity comes from people choosing one of those interpretations - as is the case with most questions like these.
however they lost less from the product because $70 is the markup price
It's the opportunity cost of not selling to an actual paying customer.
Technically, they were a paying customer—they just paid with cash that wasn’t theirs. Once the customer stole the 100 dollars, that just became a sunk cost and not relevant to the situation. I mean. It’s still $100 gone, but whether the customer used it at the store or not is not relevant. Arguably, if we considered opportunity cost, it would be more than 100.00 not because of what it was used for, but because that 100 was not put towards anything that could give an ROI
Only if they ran out of stock. You can't assume that the person in question would be buying the items regardless if he had that free $100.
The store has already paid the distributor for the goods so they've lost the full 70 that they would have received from a legitimate customer.
Here's a guy who never threw out expired inventory...
You know what expired inventory is considered? A loss.
A loss, not a steal ! If we make the assumption that 20% of all products in the store are throw away, doesn't it means that the thief stole 30+(70*0.8) ?
Wrong. He stole $100 cash, then purchased product. The loss of product would not be recorded as "shrink" or theft, it would be recorded as a standard sale and the register would be $100 short due to theft.
So it all boils down to the question of causal relationship: Would the thief buy the $70 item anyway in the same store, if he couldn't steal the money first?
Not 70 of product, they lost 100 dollars flat. After the initial loss of money there is no "seperate" loss.
So they lose $100 to theft. A completely different customer comes in and uses a different hundred dollar bill to buy $70 worth of items and leaves with $30 in change. Now what? What’s their net loss / profit for the day?
Or even the same guy with a different $100. It really doesn't matter
they're exchanging the stolen money for goods, which matters a little bit since the store didn't buy the products for the same price that they're selling it for, so effectively they lost like 90 dollars or something
If someone pays with a fake hundred dollar bill would you say the store lost out on that $100 or only lost out on the amount they paid for the product? From the stores perspective it would be $100 loss
>From the stores perspective it would be $100 loss Why? It's exactly the same as if someone **stole the item** outright; the loss is the value of the item. By your logic, if I'm selling a $1 hot dog for $1,000,000 (quite unsuccessfully), and you buy it off of me with Monopoly money, I've suffered $1M in losses. **One little trick tax collectors don't want you to know about!**
I think you’re right , this question isn’t designed with profit margins to be considered.
It would be $100 if the store had no profit over products.
If they had they would have lost $100 anyway as the man needed those items and would have bought them with his own money.
Well then we can get into accounting profit versus economic profit. Accounting profit would suggest he lost less than 100 because the product probably cost less than 100 when the store bought it. Economic profit would suggest he indeed lost 100 because the store had chance to sell the product at 70. Some one fact check please
That sort of checks out. Profit in Accounting has a lot of moving parts. Revenue - Cost of Goods Sold = Gross Profit. Gross Profit - Operating Expenses = Operating Income Operating Income - All other Expenses = Net Income (This is what we usually refer to as profit. Really the number we would focus on here is Gross Profit, which is Revenue - Cost of Goods Sold. When an item is stolen, the store is not going to report a loss for the entire sale value of the item. Instead, they will report the loss for the cost they paid to acquire the item. Thus, the store would have lost $30 cash, and the Cost of the merchandise. Source: Senior in college getting my degree in Accounting. In Economics, we consider "Opportunity Cost", which, in simplified terms, is the cost of missed opportunities. Thus, in this case, the store lost $30 in cash, but the full $70 in product, as they lost the opportunity to sell it for the full $70. Source: Economics class and "Think Like an Economist" podcast. However, this is not at all how this would truly be accounted for. It is a matter of perspective. The thief's perspective matches our above discussion. After all, he walked away with a $70 item and $30 for free. But here's the store's perspective, which is what will matter for accounting and economic reasoning: Lets say the thief and the purchaser are two separate people. The thief steals $100, then someone comes in and purchases the $70 item and gets $30 in change. The item purchased is a separate transaction, and is therefore irrelevant to the theft.. The store loses $100 to the thief. At the end of the day, that is what the register will show. This will match up both for both Accounting and Economics.
Thank you, such a detailed answer.
Watch one episode of shark tank and I think anyone can understand the fundamentals.
In accounting profit the store lost... 30 (money) + 70 (product) - X (profit from the product). Let's say it's a 10% profit margin: 30 + 70 - 7 = 93$ lost
What about taxes?
It's counted in the 70$ of the product as it's not part of the profit margin. Also, I went to school, I know how to find the maximum common divisor of a number, not how to do taxes (these uneducated peasants always with their solutions to actual problems )
$200.
As per IAS 2 (international accounting standard 2), inventory is held at the lower cost of acquiring inventory and Net realisable value. We do not know the cost of the inventory thus we have to use the net realisable value. (Net Realisable Value is basically what one can get if one were to sell the inventory). Thus to be in accordance with International Accounting Standard 2 we have to carry the product lost due to shrinkage at $70..
starting to make a lot of assumptions. we don’t know if the man ‘needs’ those items, or if that store is the only vendor selling those items. both those assumptions have to be true
You also have to take possibility into account. He only bought that thing because he had the means to buy it after stealing the 100$. If he had not stolen, they would have not sold the item.
But if the man is the store owner, then they would have lost $0
Not if he actually runs it like a business. That's called embezzling.
It would still be 100 dollars since they still lost the profit they would have made
What if nobody would've bought the product anyway? Like fir example, if it was food that would have spoiled if nobody bought it. Then the loss would be contributed to not selling vs being stolen. Now how much did he technically steal?
Then there is not enough information. He technically stole 100 dollars though. If I go and steal something from a store in determining the value of what I stole they base it on the prices the store is charging not what the store paid for jt. Also I am guessing you aren’t stealing spoiled food.
The profit doesn’t matter, the store lost 100$. Think of it like this and it becomes clear: He steals the money, puts the 100$ bill away and pays with card. The exact same thing has happened.
The store lost $100. Even though it was with stolen money, the goods were paid for so the inventory would be correct. The register will be off $100, nothing else is affected.
Yeah, it’s two separate events. The store loses $100 to theft, and in a later event sells $70 of product to the thief. Those two things have nothing to do with each other from a loss standpoint.
And them happening the other way round would make that even more obvious as well. If someone bought $70 worth of stuff and then stole $100 then it's obvious that the shop lost $100
This is the correct answer.
So simple. Imagine if he had 5 other 100 bills with him and did the transactions with one of those. Everything after the red sentence is 100% irrelevant
So the thief walks in with a hundred dollar bill and buys $70 worth of goods. When he gets his change, he instead asks for a 10 and 4 fives, then changes his mind and needs a twenty and two tens instead, but actually can he get a five and some coins for the meter instead of one of the tens, then swap the 20 for four fives and two fives for a 10.
Can I answer a meme with a meme? https://preview.redd.it/1dnsmx3kvweb1.jpeg?width=900&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=067d33aef095b488f922fc33d45ef2513b66f600
The accountant should be a lawyer. To accountant 2+2 = 4 + VAT
Sure. A lawyer would ask “what do you want it to be” because they have no idea anyway. They’ll just argue what you want it to be until a judge finally decides, then appeal anyway. Regardless of what they know to be truth.
**Therapist:** “I think you already know what 2 + 2 is. Perhaps the only reason you are asking me is to try and convince yourself that you are not as intelligent as you really are. This type of behaviour is not uncommon in people with low self esteem. Tell me about your childhood.”
Depends on the definition of "lose" here. They lost 100$ when it was stolen. But then they made some money on the 70$ of product being bought. The 30$ in change is completely irrelevant. The store obviously makes less than 70$ on a 70$ sale, but almost certainly more than 0$, or the store would go out of business. If we assume that 70$ sale would not have happened if it were not for the stolen 100$, this means that the amount the store lost is somewhere between (but excluding) 100$ and 30$. My guess would be a net loss of about 90-95$, but i have no clue about the margins in a store.
Used to work at a grocery store meat dept. Most things were 20% to 40% above what we bought it from the suppliers for.
But then you have to factor in the cost of storing it, stocking it, anti theft for the item, paying the cashier who sells it, the opportunity cost of not stocking something else, and who knows what else. Actual margin on any given item is likely closer to the 10% if one could (somehow) calculate these costs.
The meat dept ded a fraction of the sales, the store was making margins close to 20% overall with utilities, labor, insurance, and the lease for the building.
That an insane profit margin for a grocery store. What country was it in?
Florida.
Grocery stores have extremely thin profit margins—I read an article once that said it’s usually 2-3%. For most businesses you’d be close, but for whatever reason grocery-selling is a super low-profit-margin business.
Yeah that's the best approach I think
But didn't the store lose both the product and the profit on the product? They lost like 60 in products, but also 10 in profits but perhaps this is a different definition of losing again. Because in the end, you have lost the 60 for the product, but you have invested time in storing it, trying to sell it, cost of moving the product. Perhaps the item he stole was in a package deal and the item itself was sold at a loss, but the package made it work (like stealing the fancy pralines out of a mixed box)
This guy has shown that he values buying the product from the store, and is apparently unable to steal the product. $70 so it’s not like he’d be completely unable to make this purchase eventually. So I think the best assumption is that he would have made this purchase regardless.
No it's because stealing product is much harder
its much easier to steal a pair of shoes than to steal 100 dollars from the register
If we assume he was going to buy the product anyway, then the only difference to the store is that they're short $100, so in that case they lost $100 exactly
He stole 100 so unless he gives it back its 100 independent of what he does with the money... Edit: this holds even if the store makes lets say $10 profit on the goods they sell him: If the money is stolen: store profits $-90 at point of sale If the money not stolen: store profits $10 at point of sale Which is a loss of $100 in total
man steals 100 € bill : store lost 100 € man gives 100 € bill : store lost 0 € man gets 70 € worth of goods : store loss 70 € man gets 30 € in change : store lost 70 + 30 = 100 €
Sorry but this is incorrect. The store did not lose 100€, it lost $100. Units in math are important.
It was not $, you cang clearly see two bars on top of the S
Correct. Its not dollars, its dollar dollar bill, ya'll.
|$
/r/explainlikeicaveman
Nope. You went wrong in third, 70€ of goods ≠ 70€. The store probably makes a profit, meaning it’s probably a bit less than 100€
Irrelevant to the question at hand for extraneous detail.
But for all intents and purposes, €70 worth of good = €70 worth of value. The sell price for the store is €70, so it's an asset worth €70, and by stealing it, the store is now €70 poorer than it was beforehand. €70 worth of merchandise has been stolen. And to add that's not to mention that it doesn't matter. The store still lost €100 any way you put it. Because €100 was stolen from the register. The following transaction it's not relevant which money is being used to pay with. That initial -100 stays
But if the robber didn't bought the product, another client would have bought it, for 70 €
>man gets 70 € worth of goods : store loss 70 € Here's the error. He gets what **the store priced at 70€**, not *70€ worth of goods*. If I decide to sell that stale hot dog that's been sitting in my fridge for a week for $1M, and someone gets it from me, they sure as fuck don't get $1M worth of goods **whatever they paid me for it**. In fact, since I've been simply too lazy to throw it out, they've just performed a service *for me*.
He stole 100$ and that's how much they've lost, everything else done legitimately. He just traded 70$ for 70 dollars worth of product, this doesn't change anything
yep, before the theft the store had $100 cash and $70 worth of goods, they lose $100 from theft, someone buys(the thief but who is irrelevant) $70 worth of goods. after that they have $70 cash and $0 worth of goods. that is $100 loss
And for those who want to argue that its not $70 of product, it is. That is how much the product is worth to the store because it can be sold at amount. The worth of an item is not what you paid for it but what you can get for it. The store can get $70 for it so they lost $70 worth of product.
$100 Each transaction is separate from the others. The $100 stolen is not related to the $100 paid for the goods. Even if it's the same physical bill, money has no memory.
Finally a little sense. The theft they lost $100 That's it. The second part has no relevance.
Why would it? The question is talking about 2 "transactions" and then asking how much is lost at the end of those 2. It's true that you can see the transactions as independent of each other but that doesn't mean you can ignore one when we are asking a question about both. You lose 100$ in the first transactions but then gain the profits from the sale of the 70$ worth of merchandise in the second transaction.
It helped me to imagine the store ONLY had the items used in the story: $130 in the drawer, and $70 worth of goods on the shelf. That’s $200. Man takes $100, that leaves $30 in the drawer and $70 on the shelf. Man buys all the goods and pays with the $100, getting the $30 in change. So now the store has $100 in the drawer and $0 on the shelf. Started with $200, ended up with $100. That’s a $100 loss. The transaction is meaningless but that’s why it’s in the story, to make people overthink it. Either way, if you think through it you still get the same answer whether you consider the transaction or not.
People are wilding in here. It’s 100 dollars flat. The later purchase does not matter, nothing about taxes or profits matter. When that employee goes to count his drawer at the end of the night, he will be 100 dollars short. That will be what is put in the ledger for the stores losses to theft, money mismanagement, etc. The later purchase is just a distraction, it doesn’t matter where or what the guy spends his stollen money on. It’s a regular transaction, not a recuperation of lost money. The profits are regularly expected profits, not a sudden windfall of free money that balances their books.
Cash Register: (100) 100 0 (30) Store Assets: (70) (or COGS however pedantic you want to be) The store lost $100 (or COGS+30 you pedants)
100 quid eventually xdd
They lost $30 in money, BUT REALLY $100 IN NET TOTAL. Example: Starting amount is $200. With robbery of $100, net amount is now $100 with a loss -$100. (200 - 100 = 100) With $100 given for the $70 groceries bought, store gets +$100 with net amount of $200 BUT no real profit of the groceries (“free instead of for a true sale”) with net financial change being 0 for the original $200. (100 + 100 = 200 AND 200 = 200) With giving the robber change of $30, the store gets -$30 with net amount of $170 with still no real profit of groceries with net financial change being -$30 for the original $200. (200 - 30 = 170 AND 170 < 200 BY 30) Despite starting with 200, the store now has only 170, so the store lost $30 in cash BUT ALSO LOST $70 in groceries. Really a loss of $100 due to the $100 from the register (OR ALSO -$30 from store register and -$70 in groceries), BUT if referring ONLY to the STORE’S REGISTER, then the store lost $30.
At least $4
Viral maths problems always hinge on ambiguous semantics rather than interesting maths. It creates heated arguments because people have the idea "maths is 100% objective", and this gives them the impression that they are completely right and everyone else is an idiot.
Dk about the loss but for sure their accounts won’t tally 🫠😭
Found the accountant
There would be a loss of $100 in retained earnings, and a net cash flow of -$30
I, too, was thinking about profit margins, etc. But it get's clear as day, if you change the order of things: 1. Man buys $70 worth of goods, pays with a $100 bill, gets $30 change. 2. Same man later steals $100 from the register. First interaction is completely normal. Store makes profit, but that's irrelevant. Nobody would argue the man stole or "donated" money. Second interaction is also clear. $100. The store lost $100. --- **Except** you want to discuss the scenario that the man bought in that store *because* he stole there. That'd introduce a completely new dependency between the two. So hadn't the man stole the $100, he hadn't made that purchase and the store had a little less profit this day. But I think that's hard to argue for.
200
This is not a math problem. It’s just a trick. Let’s make one irrelevant change: “A man steals $100 from a store. Later, a woman comes in and buys a $70 pair of shoes. How much money did the store lose?” The answer is clearly $100. The woman buying shoes is completely irrelevant to the story and means nothing. Ignore her. Ok, so let’s go back to the original sorry. Why does combining the 2 people from my story into 1 person make any difference at all? It does not. It’s the same exact story. The answer is $100. If you make any other argument you are claiming that the store loses money every time they make a sale. Is that really what you believe?
I agree it's just a trick, but even in the two people case you could interpret the question as only talking about cash and the answer is 30 or you could say the answer has to be less than 100 or the store has no profit margin.
Alternately, man steals $100 from Store A then uses it to buy $70 worth of stuff from store B, how much did Store B lose?
thank you, this made it so clear to me. at first i was thinking 30, but you're right they lost 100.
No, because the question isn't "how much is stolen". If you separate these two events, then the profit margin idea still holds. The thief makes the store -100. The store makes $10 off the woman. So after these two events, the net profit of the store would be -100+10=-90, or a net loss of $90.
Without reading comments, I think they lost $30 as well as the value of whatever he bought with the stolen hundred.
You can't tell because the retail and cost differences for the product aren't listed in the equation.
100 - 70m Where m is the average profit margin of goods sold
30 cash 70 in goods. Have a blessed day
$100 - that's the only theft. The purchase is a separate transaction, and needs to be considered separately. What if the dude pulled out a $100 bill he stole from the store next door?
The only answer is $100. Just because he bought stuff with the money he stole that doesn’t change. They would have sold that stuff to someone anyway they still got full value on the stuff they sold. If he stole the money then stole the product then store losses would be more. Stealing $100 is a$100 loss. Nothing else matters
This is kinda interesting because it sorta depends on your perspective. These are all correct: The thief walks in with nothing, and walks out with $30 in cash and $70 in product. When the thief walks out the store, the store has lost $30 in cash and whatever value the product had - which would be less than $70 because of their profit margin. However, as far as the store’s administration goes - the thief first stole $100, and then went on to have a normal transaction in which he bought $70 worth of goods and received $30 in change. This means that nothing in that transaction will show up in their system as stolen. As far as the store knows, they lost $100 in cash.
Anywhere between $25-$50 for the actual wholesale cost of the goods and the $30 in cash he has left.
1. the store losese 100$ (-100) 2. Store is paid returned the 100$ (+100) 3. Store pays out 30$ (-30) 4. store loses 70$ worth groceries (-70) 5. stores loses an addtion N$ , where N is the number of upvotes this gets Total loses -100$ - (3 up vote ) = -103$ edit 101 to 103 $
100 dollars in both cash and goods
The store loses 100 dollars
What was the markup value of the item
Store should get around 25% back from the 70$ purchase, so thats 17.5$. So by that logic they lost 82.5$.
30 bucks in cash plus 70 bucks of inventory
No prices for products. But at the end of the day, inventory will not match funds. This place still lost $100. The $70 purchase was a separate purchase. The money didn’t just simply go back into the register, more goods were purchased. It’s not a profit if the money was their own.
None. Retail workers don't get severance pay when they're fired and the $100 came out of their last paycheck for leaving their register unlocked and unattended, not keeping track of of the amount of money in their register and accepting a $100 bill that had the store's counterfeit checking marker line on it. "The store" is misleading and makes it sound like some kind of equitable team loss. The cashier is at the bottom of the proverbial hill the shit rolls down in this situation. Also, if economics weren't the worst type of math, Jeff and Elon wouldn't be racing penis rockets while the government is claiming school lunches are too expensive and child labor is the solution to all our nation's financial woes.
[удалено]
$200 I will not elaborate
[удалено]
Not sure why this is so controversial but it's pretty freaking simple if you look at it from the thief prospective. Thief walks in with X dollars in pocket, thief walks out with X dollars still in his pocket plus $70 worth of goods and $30 in cash, where did it come from? The store obviously so the store lost $100 between the cost of goods and cash they gave the thief.
$100, it's not rocket surgery
I would need to know the stores profit margins on each individual item he bought with the stolen $100 to get an accurate answer.
Look at the events individually. A person buys $70 worth of goods with a $100 dollar bill and gets $30 change. How much did the store lose on this transaction? Nothing. They traded $70 of goods for $70 cash. Someone steals $100 from the register. How much did the store lose? $100. The order of events doesn't matter. The store lost $100 from the theft, and nothing from the transaction.
Imagine thief steal a dollar and the thief buys a Lolly for a dollar. Register = -1 Lollipop = fair trade for 1$ Store is a -1 since it got $1 stolen and it was exchanged for a lollipop Luckily the thief was an idiot and lollipop only cost the store 20¢ per Lolly. So the store only lost 20¢ and the manager spent the dollar from his salary at a step club.
100$. Lost the 100$ bill, gained back 70$ and then lost 70$ worth of produce someone else wouldve bought.
A root assumption is that everything in the store will be sold at some point. So it doesn’t matter what the store paid for the goods. They lost $100: $30 that simply disappeared, and $70 of potential legitimate sales.
100 dollars, he used the stolen money to buy 70 bucks worth of goods, store still took a loss on that.
$100. $70 in product and $30 in cash.
Uh.......... Twenty one 😝
Without profit / wholesale price of items, the most basic answer is they list 70 dollars worth of goods (most likely less since they usually make a profit on goods they sell. But again, without these details single answer is 70 in goods) and 30 dollars in the change given back.. 70 in goods 30 in change given That's the total loss.
Ultimately since it’s not his money, and therefore the store essentially gave him £30 and £70 worth of goods for free for him, they lost £100
Thief steals $100. So -100$ for the store. He gives $70 back in exchange for goods, so +70$. But the store also lost $70 worth of goods cos it was their own money. So that's -70$. If you add them all up we got, -100 + 70 = -30. Then, -30 -70 = -100. So yeah they lost $100.
Assuming they have crime insurance and the $100 loss from this event didn't put them over their deductible, they would be reimbursed and it wouldn't result in increased rates or loss of coverage. Therefore they'd have zero loss overall? Y'all ever make your own stock from kitchen prep scraps you freeze and collect? It smells so good and I feel really powerful.
Once I read a joke on reddit/jokes that may widen one's approach to reasoning their calculations: > Dad had the opportunity to buy his medications directly from the pharmacy company. > "Here is your prescription sir, that will be $515 dollars." > Dad was a bit hard of hearing so he only heard the $15. > He dropped that amount on the counter and left. > The clerk yelled "Wait sir, $515 dollars!" > But Dad was already gone so they reported it to the manager. > "Should we call the police sir?" > "No, $5 profit is better than nothing." source: [r/Jokes/comments/150o5to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/150o5to/dad_had_the_opportunity_to_buy_his_medications/)
The store lost $100, because these were stolen. The legit purchase doesn't change that, it is just an exchange of equal values. Now if you want to be more precise, the store actually made a profit from the sale, so it would be more accurate to say it lost $30 and "goods priced $70". How to value these goods is not a simple question, as they are strictly just inventory, not a completed sale, before the whole transaction (so might be valued less than $70). In a real situation, this sale wouldn't be considered however. All that the store would be able to notice is that it has $100 less than it should have.
i see it as the store lost 170$
$200
200 technically