The reason standard costs are separated into two components is because standard costs are considered fixed costs. A fixed cost is one that can’t be changed and therefore doesn’t create any new value for a company. That way we know how much we’d pay for something and what the cost is.

Fixed costs are usually the highest cost item in the company, with the cost for everything else being the “regular” costs. So if your company is buying a new computer and you want a new monitor it would cost more because the standard monitor is already being used. You could also argue that the cost to replace your computer is more expensive than the cost to replace your monitor, but that’s not the correct way to look at it.

For starters, the cost of a new computer itself is usually more expensive to purchase than the cost of a new monitor, so why separate out the two? A standard computer is much more common than a monitor and if you purchase a standard computer, you get the standard monitor and a standard operating system.

Also, when you buy a monitor, you get a brand new computer, so it doesn’t make sense to separate the two into two components.

They are both standard components. The monitor comes standard with a computer, but most computers come standard with a monitor and a monitor is a computer. This is because they are used together. If I buy a computer for \$200, I get a monitor for \$100. The monitor is a regular computer, which comes with the operating system and stuff, and a monitor is a computer. A monitor has a computer, and a computer can have a monitor if it has the proper software to do so.

Separate the two into two components, as the monitor and the monitor are separate devices. A monitor is a monitor, and a monitor is a computer.

Technically, a monitor is a computer, but it can also be a monitor. Technically, a monitor and a monitor are not separate devices, but I find it hard to believe that the phrase “separate the two components” would be part of the standard.

Technically, a monitor is a computer, but it can also be a monitor. Technically, a monitor and a monitor are not separate devices, but I find it hard to believe that the phrase separate the two components would be part of the standard. A monitor is a monitor, and a monitor is a computer. Technically, a monitor is a computer, but it can also be a monitor. Technically, a monitor is a computer, but it can also be a monitor.

Separating two components of a standard costs is a good way to get everyone on the team on the same page about what the standard is. It allows everyone to focus on what the standard is, not their own individual costs. It also helps the team understand where the cost savings come from (because if you can’t explain it, then it’s not a cost).