Suppose that you were the manager of a large retail store that was currently experiencing a shoplifting problem. Every hour, approximately $15 worth of merchandise was being stolen from your store. Suppose that a security guard would completely eliminate the shoplifting in your store. If you were interested in maximizing your profits, should you hire a security guard if the wage rate of security guards was $20 per hour? Why or why not? What does this imply about the relationship between average shoplifting per hour in the economy and the wage rates of security guards?

Benefits are amplified at a point where the minor income efficiency (MRP) is equivalent to the expense of employing a security watch. In this way, a benefit expanding firm will enlist as long as the MRP is more noteworthy than the wages or the expense of recruiting a security monitor.  

On the off chance that I need to amplify benefit, at that point I won't enlist the security monitor at a compensation pace of $20 in light of the fact that the expense of recruiting is more noteworthy than the expansion to the complete income or MRP, which is equivalent to $15 (expecting that the security watchman will kill shoplifting).  

The above examination shows that a security watchman will be paid a compensation rate for every hour, which is equivalent to the sum spared every hour by the security monitor for wiping out the normal shoplifting every hour.  

The sum spared is an expansion to the all out income, and no benefit boosting firm would pay a compensation rate higher than the augmentations to the complete income.

a ab

the answer to this question would be shared investment