Yes you come up with a figure that is closer but I could make up a little story and get some figures to get lose - it means nothing - the point is that if you assert that the difference between the two wages is 31% of the HIGHER wage - finding out 31% of the LOWER DLC price is utterly meaningless - there is no connection between the two. If you had a brain, you would see that although the economics of your central point are wrong the way to make your argument would be this: Step 1 - US min wage is 69% of UK min wage Step 2 - working on that assumption we assume that $40 is 69% of the uk price Step 3 - uk price = (40/69) * 100 = $58 Its still horsh1t but at least the economic theory that you have been arguing is applied consistently throughout

But that isn't the UK price. And my way is easier and closer to the price that is being offered. So if I just guessed and threw out numbers and attained a solution closer than that if yours what does that say about your math? Btw I'm in mat 243, Theoretical Mathematics - Statics

Of course it's not the UK price but neither is yours you've added some miscellaneous crap to make up the shortfall. The point being either way mine or yours it's bullsh1t because the premise of your economical argument is incorrect but you then used the math incorrectly in support of a flawed premise.

My "shortfall" is less than $2. Are you going to add in the 20% to come up with your final number or are you going to leave it out to try and make it seem like your right? Don't back out now bub. You came hear boasting that my math is wrong and you've just shown sh!t

Although you get a number closer the way you get there is illogical you can't say that wages are 31% lower in the U.S. and then find out 31% of the lower U.S. Price and then add it back on to the U.S. Price You end up with a figure that is meaningless. That's my point. The fact that the figures my way don't give you the right answer proves your central theory wrong. The only way you can get to a number that is close is because you have applied the maths in a manner running wholly contrary to logic. My calculations disprove your initial theory because I have done the math logically and consistently and not simply tried to make it fit.