~Corsair#01~
Deity
That's not very funny, and becomes less so the more you think about it.
[RD] Daily Graphs and Charts
- Thread starter Winner
- Start date
- Status
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I'm surprised that returning goods costs more than actually shipping them out in the first place. Is there something that I'm missing?
It didn't come with an explanation. But I'd have to guess economies of scale. It's easier to put 50 in a box 1000s of time and label them and send them out, because it can all be automated. Where putting a few in many boxes by hand would be more work.
Mise
isle of lucy
The cost is probably a fuller economic cost, e.g. the opportunity cost of using retail/warehouse space, and the capital cost of having the $x tied up in stock (and having to pay interest on it or otherwise not being able to use it to buy anything else). If you have unsold inventory on the shelf for a year, say, then this all adds up.
I'm sure the lion's share of it is going to be economies of scale though.
I'm sure the lion's share of it is going to be economies of scale though.
Thanks to the Verge:
https://www.jasondavies.com/maps/voronoi/airports/
https://www.jasondavies.com/maps/voronoi/airports/
Mise
isle of lucy
That's cool. It's a shame you can't remove the shading though. I have a feeling it would still be recognisably "the world".
madviking
north american scum
Yay Charlottesville is on the map! That being said, the airport in Charlottesville is downright tiny.
stfoskey12
Emperor of Foskania
The world capitals one is pretty cool, too. It makes western Alaska part of Japan and northern Alaska part of Greenland.
I kinda like the way they divy up Antarctica.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
The graph just shows how irresponsible the lenders were.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Amen.
Mise
isle of lucy
Quick question: Back in 1890, I would guess that not many people owned a house. Maybe ownership was like, 10% of the total population? But the graph has been inflation adjusted, so that $100,000 today means the same in terms of affordability as $100,000 in 1890, right? Why couldn't people have afforded houses in 1890? Or does inflation adjusting not do that, as it doesn't take into account average wages or savings or wealth or something?
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
Back in 1890, we did not have the roads and automobiles that allow large numbers of people to own houses in suburbs and commute to work in cities. People back then had to live much closer to their place of employment. It is hard to afford your own house on the more expensive urban land even now, and the price differential between urban and rural land was sharper then. Before cars (or at least trolleys, which were beginning to allow for the development of suburbs at about that time), tenements were the only option for a large part of the population.
Mise
isle of lucy
So is the graph "fair" then? Shouldn't the graph represent the (presumably) astronomical cost of buying a house in a city, even though the majority of owned houses were actually in the country? I.e. from what you're saying, it sounds like the cost of buying a house in a city was so high that actually, not many houses got bought and sold, and therefore the "average house price" was dictated by the sale of cheaper houses in rural towns. So the graph isn't actually a fair comparison, is it?
Most of the national population was rural. So they had to have houses, as there was little in the way of apartments in rural areas. As to how fair that comparison is, hard to say. There wasn't the land competition as in cities, but rural people also had very low incomes. So the houses represented a very large part of their purchasing power. And what houses were purchased were mostly without mortgages.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
