data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3d10e/3d10e4893f91fa5e0b939251d69fd71ab5cb2a28" alt=""
George runs a miniature golf course in Marietta, Ohio. He rents the course and equipment from a large recreational supply company and supplies his own labor. His monthly earnings, net of rental payments, are $800, and he considers working at the golf course just as attractive as his only other alternatives, working as a grocery clerk for $800/month.
Now George learns that his uncle Kramer has died and left him some land in downtown New York City (right next to the Empire State Building). The land has been cleared, and George discovers that a construction company is willing to install and maintain a miniature golf course on it for a payment of $4000/month. George also commissions a market survey, which reveals that he would collect $16,000/month in revenue by operating a miniature golf course there. (After all, there are many more potential golfers in Manhattan that in Marietta.) After deducting the $4000/month payment to the construction company, this would leave him with $12,000/month free and clear. Given these figures, and assuming that the cost of living is the same in New York as in Marietta, should George, a profit maximizer, switch his operation to Manhattan?
Congratulations to Jeremy Jusek for providing the first correct answer. While the revenue estimates clearly indicate that Manhattan is a more lucrative market, it's also likely to be much more costly to operate a mini-golf course in downtown Manhattan given the scarcity of land. As Jeremy points out, the opportunity cost of using the land for a mini-golf course is likely to be extremely high. It's probably better to sell the Manhattan property and stay put in Marietta.