12 ms·
I think a more accurate analogy is that if you bought those 3 items and they did have proper itemized cost, but the whole package also had a $500 shipping charg
by gretch 3y ago
I think a more accurate analogy is that if you bought those 3 items and they did have proper itemized cost, but the whole package also had a $500 shipping charge. And then it’s not obvious how to distribute the shipping cost across each item. And in both situations it’s probably better to itemize by itself, though maybe some system didn’t allow for non tangible costs like “R&D”
- reaperman 3y agoMuch better analogy.
- LadyCailin 3y agoIf you itemize separately, then you can start to ask the important questions, like, “why is shipping $500”.
- dmix 3y agoThe excuse repeatedly here is that "it was easier/convenient (to merge it into a single line item)" or "its just an accounting artifact", as if that isn't a giant red flag all in itself. It's easy to ignore the $600... but if a hammer line-item could be 10x'd on vague R&D costs only the original accountant really understands... how is that better? That's a recipe for masking waste and never knowing why anything costs as much as it does, without expensive in-person interviews with the people involved. Can't imagine what it's like trying to compete with companies engaging in this sort of practice. How could you possibly project costs? Why even bother? Just tell them it's a $1 hammer and make it up in R&D hidden away in "accounting artifacts".
- dghlsakjg 3y agoBecause table saws can frequently have the same dimensions as a refrigerator.