Lizshadehdg
Hi I have a question regarding answer E for the 2nd question.
According to the passage ………decrease when production declines due to inadequate supplies of raw materials, problems on the factory floor, or inefficient sales networks.
Consequently, potential economies of scale are based on the physical and engineering characteristics of the production facilities—that is, on tangible capital—but realized economies of scale are operational and organizational, and depend on knowledge, skills, experience, and teamwork—that is, on organized human capabilities, or intangible capital.
I don’t quit get the logic between the two sentence before and after the word ‘Consequently’
Could anyone explain? If fixed and sunken costs are not affected by fluctuations in a manufacturing plant’s throughput, they are affected by what?
The passage doesn't go into detail about what affects fixed/sunk costs. For sunk costs, it would be things like the design of the plant, cost of building materials and construction labor, etc. For fixed costs, it might be things like cost of rent, property taxes, utilities, insurance, etc.
Regardless, all you really need to know is that fixed and sunk costs, unlike variable costs, are NOT affected by levels of production or sales--they remain unchanged regardless of whether the plant makes 2 units per day or 2,000 units per day.
As a result, when fixed costs make up a significant chunk of a plant's expenses, profits are more sensitive to changes in production--that's because the plant needs to generate a certain amount of revenue just to cover the fixed expenses...
- Say for example, a plant needs to sell 5,000 units per month just to cover the fixed costs. Normally, they sell 6,000 units per month and make a handsome profit from the "extra" 1,000 units. But if production drops by 20% (1,200 units) because of, say, a supply chain issue, the plant is suddenly operating at a loss--the “unit costs rise sharply“ as production drops, because the fixed costs are spread over a smaller number of units.
- In contrast, if fixed costs didn't exist and all costs were variable, a 20% drop in production would simply mean a 20% drop in profit--which isn't a good thing, but it beats operating at a loss. And because there are no fixed costs to spread across each unit sold, the cost per unit of output would always be at the "minimum" (increasing or decreasing production wouldn't change the cost PER unit of output).
If fixed and sunk costs were insignificant (or were, despite their names, somehow variable), fluctuations in production wouldn't have much of an impact on cost per unit of output. But fixed and sunk costs are real (cost to build the plant, pay the bills, etc.)... and
because fixed/sunk costs are NOT variable, fluctuations in production WOULD have a significant impact on cost per unit of output--so how well a plant realizes economies of scale (i.e. minimizes cost per unit of output) depends greatly on how well it avoids or minimizes production declines--and that requires intangible capital (i.e. knowledge, skills, experience, and teamwork).
The part in bold is one way to summarize/paraphrase the sentence that you're asking about. To be fair, that sentence (and the use of "consequently") is awfully confusing. So rather than worry too much about mechanics, focus on the takeaway: when a plant has significant fixed costs, it needs to invest in intangible capital to minimize production delays (i.e. to maintain a steady "throughput")--otherwise profits can disappear quickly.
Hope that helps!