Sup Forums should be able to solve this

Sup Forums should be able to solve this

$100

>Graduate school
>Start working in construction
>Can no longer solve basic word problems
>Used to be lightning fast at them

This sucks.
I didn't believe the meme that your mind learns to specialize, but it does.

130, what do you think I am a nigger?
Nice trips BTW

Stores resell at a higher value so he lost the amount he paid for the goods + $30 that he gave in change.

That plus the cost the re-order the shit she bought.

Depends what the cost of the merchandise was and the labor costs associated with having said merchandise stocked, loss reported, and accounted for. Probably a little over $100.

130

-100 - 70 +100 - 30 = -100

100 but in reality a little less because the goods didnt cost him exactly 70 dollars.

100$

200

$200

BBBUT MUH LOST SALE
THAT PRODUCT COULD HAVE BEEN SOLD TO A REAL CUSTOMER

so he lost 100 in the register, 70 worth of inventory and 30 in change. How is that less than 100?

$70, anyone who answers otherwise is a dum-dum

The store lost $100. All these Americans saying otherwise genuinely make me question our education.

The owner loses ALL by being a faggot that doesn't shoot that bitch nigger robber in the face the first time

$70

Source: Hillary campaign staffer

The owner lost 100$.

$100
Wew lad

Doesn't specify that she purchased the last of anything and the chances are pretty slim unless it was at a car boot sale. ("yard sale" or some shit in Burgerneese)

No he lost 30 at the register and lost 70 in merchandise

How can you argue this?
Let's say this lady bought a $70 bike. The shop owner payed $43 for it, but that doesn't matter because unbeknownst to both of them a third person who wanted to buy a bike for $70 came in the shop after the woman had left only to find there were none left.
See what I'm saying? You both are retards.

$30

she gave him the 100 back and then got 30 in return (plus goods). There is no extra 30

...

that's false man. she was operating with stolen money, ergo the theft financed her further criminal activity. a wide range of crime was introduced which reverberated through and effected multiple classes and people

Ideally, he should've killed that nigger.

$30

He lost 100$
30 in cash, 70 in merc

I feel like it's a 130 but I'm shit at math problems.

See:
fucking semen enthusiast.

>Have 100$ stolen from you
>It's totally gone
>Hand out 70$ worth of food to someone that just stole from you
>It's gone too
>Give them 30$ in change
>That's gone

200$

This

Not MUH anything. This is a capitalist society. If you don't like it go live in the jungle with the other monkeys.

HE ONLY LOST 100 DOLLARS U FEKKIN RETARDED BURGERS

200

$100
>don't overthink it

SHE GAVE HIM 100 DOLLARS

wrong

its marked up merc
3x at least

$100 total. She went in and traded $70 of that original amount for goods, giving the owner $70 back but she took $70 worth of merchandise that he essentially paid for.

Also checked

THIS!!

>American education

$170

$100 out of pocket, $70 lost in potential sales. But since it's a thief were talking about the $70 in sales would have never happened if it wasn't bought with the stolen money.

yfw it's 140 idiots

No she didn't. He was down 100. Then she took out 70$ of merch and then they handed her another 30. The 70$ does not allow them break in you stupid faggot.

I have a low IQ and I got $30. Can someone explain this to me?

>200
fuck me it's 100

...

Lost $100 from till [minus 100]
Lost $70 from inventory [minus 170]
Gained $100 from lost till [minus 70]
Lost $30 from till as change [minus 100]

> a lady

Why is this so sexist?

I always knew pol users are retarded.

LOL

KEK I'm dumb, plus the $30 in change, so $200.

$100

ITT: people who slept through Intro to Accounting

$200

So theft isn't as bad to society if the person being stolen from has a lot of what's being stolen? Or is all theft equally bad in the eyes of the law? This about this with your little negro brain for a few innings.

>Defending thieves
Back of the bus, Travon.

Dam u r dumb

Found the drumpfkin

F.
And yes I do, as the owner is losing the value of the product as well.

no, its right
If she stole 100 dollars then walked out of the store and didnt come back, he would have lost 100 dollars
If she stole 100 dollars of groceries and stole a hundred dollar bill, it would have been 200
but she stole the hundred dollar bill INSTEAD of stealing the groceries, and paid for the groceries with the hundred dollars she stole

>don't overthink it

You are prof education is lacking

Lets say i worked at Shop and Stop and i spent my 100 of my 300$ check on groceries there

How much money did i make that week?

She gave the original $100 back to him in exchange for $30 cash and $70 goods. It's $100 in total.

(with the caveat he didn't pay $70 for the goods but is out $70 in sales)

>this is embarrassing

My god the average IQ of Sup Forums is really under 100

>Takes 100$
-100
>Gives back 100$
0
>Receives 30$
-30
The store owner lost 30$ from the theft.

>She pays for the groceries with the hundred dollar bill she just stole
the clerk gets his hundred back

I'm impressed at the number of retards answering anything else than 100

>1 post by this ID

We've been bamboozled

Yes, with money take from the store. Money has no value, it is merely an agreement of exchange in a physical form we all understand.

She didn't "pay" cause the money wasn't hers to begin with. It's the same concept if I stole your car then sold it back to you.

Store lost 3 times. Lost the money, lost the stuff she bought with it and lost the change given to her.

But the store doesn't know this, they are going to be 100 dollars short at the end of the night when they take tally.

$100.00 you fucking idiots
only the stolen money is (((lost)))
all the other information is irrelevant

>man steals 100 dollars from register
>comes back, puts 70 dollars back in the till, and then takes 70 dollars (price+profit) of food
>leaves with 30 in cash 70 in food

Retail value of the product=70
Money stolen=30
70+30=100

Only a white nationalist tard would say otherwise

Depends how much profit he's making off the goods.

ITT: Americans with an IQ of 80 also known as niggers.

>woman steals $100 from the register
>returns $100 by buying $70 worth of stuff
>he's now back at original (minus the value of stuff)
>gives woman $30 in change
>he's now recouped $70 of $100 of the cash, leaving him with a loss of $30 in cash, and in addition he's lost the value of the goods

anyone who answered anything other than 100 should just kill yourself now as to not spread your nigger-tier genes.

Less than $100 any other answer is memeing

One half. There's a 100% chance that it's not the 2 silvers box, there's a 50% chance it's the 2 golds one

>Store lost 3 times. Lost the money, lost the stuff she bought with it and lost the change given to her.

She takes a 100 dollars note
She then hands over that note to buy 70 dollars worth of merchandise
The seller gives back 30 dollars has change

At the end of the day he's missing 30 dollars in cash and 70 dollars worth of merchandise (at resell value)

...$200

When in the thread did I say that? Do you even read the entire comment chain before you reply?

stupid condom cleaner.

well done fellow leaf

$30 because the nigger (stealing from a store definitely a nigg) is giving back 100 and the store guy is giving her $30 now.

You forgot the 70$ worth of groceries she received.

$70 of merchandise and $30 cash based on just this information.

33%, no?

a hunnid

2/3

the store doesnt pay full price for their product m8

none of these answers are right..

You're incredibly jewed. So jewed you don't understand the concept of value, you think it's paper.

Ignoring the fact that stealing 100 dollars alone is a crime punishable more than 100 dollars, I want you to follow this logic

She stole cash
She financed criminal activity with that cash and levied debt on the store

The answer is $100 you motherfuckers.

The only thing the owner lost is self respect for getting robbed by some stupid bitch

I bet somebody "steals" his wife too without his knowledge

What a fucking IDIOT

The relevancy on the point of outrage clearly stems from the ineptitude of the staff to prevent the theft in the first place

.45acp cause shooting twice is wasting ammo.

Or the store is in the way wrong town

>have 130
>loose 100
>receive 100 give 30
>still have 100 so lost 30
>"bought item" is 70
>so lost 30 and 70
>30 + 70 =100
>kill all Muslims

Owner $200 Thief $0 Owner has $100 bill, $30 in change, and $70 in goods
Owner $100 Thief $100 Thief steals $100 bill
Owner $200 Thief $0 Thief gives $100 bill to owner
Owner $130 Thief $70 Thief takes goods valued at $70
Owner $100 Thief $100 Owner gives thief $30 in change
>Original amount $200-Ending amount $100 = $100 in lost $

This guy's got it