A fictional transport-cost location comparison
A fictional producer compares two potential processing sites using supplied annual costs in the same currency and price year. Site A has transport cost 120,000, labor cost 180,000 and other operating cost 100,000. Site B has transport cost 170,000, labor cost 140,000 and other operating cost 80,000. Both are assumed to meet the same product-quality and capacity requirements. An optional reliability improvement at B costs 15,000 annually and is not included in its initial figures. The exercise supplies no taxes, subsidies, discount rate or environmental valuation. A student chooses A because its transport bill is lower, while another claims the cheapest stated operating total proves the socially best location. The class must separate a narrow firm-cost comparison from a broader evaluation.
1. Compare totals before and after the optional reliability improvement.
Read the worked answer
A totals 400,000; B totals 390,000, so B is 10,000 cheaper in the initial operating comparison. Adding 15,000 makes B 405,000, which is 5,000 higher than A. The choice depends on whether the improvement and its benefits are part of the specified decision.
2. Why is the lowest total not a complete social-location judgment?
Read the worked answer
The supplied total omits environmental impacts, service reliability benefits, worker effects and distributional concerns. Those cannot be invented as free bonuses or zero costs. A broader evaluation needs explicit criteria, evidence and treatment of tradeoffs alongside the stated firm costs.