Netflix

the real answer is actually 100+tax, since there was an exchange of goods.

He lost 130 in cash and 70 dollars in merchandise. Effectively 200.

he lost price of acquisition + potential profit he could've had from selling the goods, and the 30 dollars of change. Thus 70 + 30 dollars

Its 200 retards, he lost 100 then lost 70 dollars worth of goods ans then gave her a other 30 dollars of his own money

He didn't buy those goods for 70 bucks, so you're wrong
Nice wannabe trick question which tricked yourself.

70$ plus tax

the answer is $100
took 100
gave 100
got 30 plus 70 worth of product

Attached: Pol+takes+back+the+rainbow_6c9adb_7039637.png (1200x1200, 443K)

>she steals 100
-100
>she buys 70 worth of stuff
-170
>gives him 100
-70
>gives her 30 in change
-100
Am i retarded?

$200 plus tip

He lost 70 usd of goods (so he lost less than that as it's cost+profit) and 30 usd in cash

yes you're retarded
but your'e also right in this instance

Attached: Pol+takes+back+the+rainbow_a8d69b_7039637.jpg (1200x1198, 592K)

he lost the potential profit of selling the merchandise. he lost 70 bucks worth of merchandise.

American education everyone

the lady made off with 100 - (70 - x) + 30, where x is the cost of the merchants goods.

The owner lost $100. Since he got the $100 back, he gave the $70 worth of goods for free plus an extra $30.

ITT people who over think it

>Do not overthink
That means stop considering the 'value' of the goods and net profit etc. So, with no overthinking, If you go to a store and buy a $1 soda, the store gains $1, that's it.
So the owner only loses $30 (the change), with no overthinking.

130

You're fucking retarded

see:
Great thread, OP. You managed to single-handedly derail it with a simple math problem.

The owner lost
>merchandise (70$)
>change (30$)
>cost of electricity for operating the counter to complete the transaction
>time spent servicing the thief instead of a real customer (counted in salary given to the clerk working the counter at that time)
>tax on the transaction
We'll ballpark it at around 130$

>Overthinker

the answer is 100.

You should also take the mandatory 20% tip into account

OP knew what he was doing

Attached: 1217010734337.png (645x773, 11K)

There wasn’t a thread to begin with without the bait dumbass. That actually makes this on topic lol

Wholesale price of the goods she "bought" plus the 30 bucks. The answer is none of the above. We are never told what the wholesale price of the goods was.

>How much did the owner lose?
Intentionally vague question. How much what? Money? Merchandise? Time? Hair? Extremely poor quality logic puzzle 1/10.

Attached: 83F7E287-0DD8-473D-A5B8-36BF3DD6DBE1.jpg (900x900, 83K)

you forgot to account for the body heat the thief added to the store which then had to be cooled by the stores AC unit, thus costing electricity

what if the store was sneed’s feed and seed

And the pay for protection to the local gang

$30 cash
$70 in goods
$100 if you count both

great reading comprehension skills, nigger

The real question is if the goods purchased should be considered retail price or the price when the store owner bought the goods. Every item is bought and sold again with an expected profits to cover all the costs of owning a store and the price of the good and a little profit of course. So is the retail price the real value of what is lost or should you calculate the costs of the goods? Because nobody could say that for sure the 70 dollars worth of goods were gonna be sold, thus would it be the full retail price he lost or could you say that it's solely the costs of goods he lost. It's a philosophical question and that answer isn't there so it can't be answered.

She stole 100 dollars from the store owner.
He's at -100.

Then she buys 70 dollars worth of goods with the 100 dollar bill.
He's at 0 now.

Then he gives her 30 dollars in change.
Now he's at -30.

The woman leave with 30 dollars that aren't hers and 70 dollars worth of goods she paid for with stolen money.

The store owner lost 30 dollars and 70 dollars worth of goods for a total of 100.

$170

>Steal $100
>Owner -$100
>Exchange $70 for $70
>Owner -$100
>Owner hands over $30
>Owner is left with -$70

The answer is $70

but he didn't pay $70 for those goods himself. He needs to make a profit. probably only spent $20-$30 on the goods if he's a good buisnessman.

its 30. owner lost 100, got 100 back but gave back 30 for her purchase. buncha retards on this board

Attached: BC8212BF-7537-4EF5-AF42-A36DC0FD9630.jpg (1236x1198, 101K)

>She steals $100
>-$100
>She gives the money back
>$0
>He then gives her $70 worth of good
>-$70
>Then he gives back $30 in change
>-$70 - $30 = -$100
He lost $100

when you account for shoplifted goods, you considered them valued at retail price, not what you bought them at as the shopkeeper

Aahh so this is the thread we make fun of retarded Burgers. It's been a while.

Post that Kurisu "you should be able to salve this" pic as well please. It really gets the mutts going.

Attached: 1555885586519.gif (360x263, 623K)

Cringe post desu

$70 worth of goods
$30 from the register

stupid question thats hard to answer because he lost money in different ways

Attached: 1555814060823.jpg (512x422, 29K)

>do not overthink it
>Again do not overthink it
Did you not fucking pay attention tardo?

Attached: 1277339339798.jpg (593x581, 43K)

>people who are getting $100

Attached: 1502956907256.jpg (645x773, 56K)

Depends whether or not the items were on sale, in which case he was already losing money to begin with.

Depends on how overpriced his goods are.

Attached: 1548415133986.jpg (900x900, 143K)

Um, he didn't lose anything because the money didn't belong to him in the first place. He stole it from the labor of the people who work for him and the people who actually produced and provided him with the goods he sells.

-100 +100 - 70 - 30 = -100

It started with an interesting premise, but the creator of the doc didn't do much with it other than try to make himself part of the story by yelling at a lady who was in prison on the phone and accomplishing nothing. "The Jinx" was far better in that regard.

If you are going into a subject matter to make a documentary and intend to throw yourself out there by investigating and digging more info out of the accused/witnesses etc, don't fucking half-ass it. If you don't intend to go fully down that path, just make a normal documentary.

30$ you morons.

The question is how much money he lost, not merchandise

Lost 200$ - 100$ initially stolen + 70$ worth of goods + 30$ change which she didn't deserve

>100$ was stolen from register
>100$ transaction occuers from money that was supposed to be in it
When the owner counted his register that night, it would be 200$ short.
You fucking morons.

they lost

$30 from till
Got $70 back
lost $70 of inventory

$70 lost revenue in sales $30 in liquid cash

>"how much did the owner lose????"
>hOW mUcH mOneY

No, fag. It's 100.

he got $70 back

he lost $30 by your own logic

So you are forgetting he also lost $100 at the start?

What if the lady had bought 100$ worth of goods? How much would he have lost then?

You cant put money value on merchandise because we dont know the merchandise. For all we know the merchandise can be air. Air is free. So the owner lost 30$

$30 plus the cost of the merchandise.

he got $70 back

she literally got paid 30 to shop lift smooth brain

>air is free

Attached: 39CE6A2900000578-0-image-a-12_1477660058088.jpg (634x529, 86K)

possible sales, not merch

because the prices of the merch are higher than the shop bought them for

possible revenue of $70

He would have lost $100 in goods.

There's no such thing as "lost revenue". If something is never sold the revenue doesn't exist.

Criminally underrated post

stores have sales targets

they lost $70 in sales

Wrong. If I cut your balls off, I'll be responsible for all your unborn babies.

The sales never existed. You can't lose something that never happened.

the sale is literally written down in the owner's accounting books though. it exists

He's down $20,100 dollars

Down $100 dollars from the theft and $20,000 from medical expenses for an attempted suicide after he was short paying his bills that month by $100

I can write down your sex life, that doesn't make it real.

you'll owe me a sex life, then.

they did when they took inventory and bought stock

>hurr making a sale is losing money

You're all fucking retards. Imagine a separate customer comes in to purchase after the theft.