6 ms·

> Irina Yusupov sued the studio, and the jury found in her favor, awarding her £25,000, or about $125,000. MGM had to take the film out of circulation for decad

> Irina Yusupov sued the studio, and the jury found in her favor, awarding her £25,000, or about $125,000. MGM had to take the film out of circulation for decades and purge the offending scene for all time. I wish articles would make it clear if they are using inflation-adjusted figures or not. Looking at the source document, the above is not adjusted for inflation. Therefore it's $2,200,000 in today's dollars[1]. A non-trivial amount even for a big studio. [1] http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=125000&year1=1934&year2=2016 http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=125000&year1=19...

coldtea 10y ago
Well, for a big studio today it's close to the amount they spend on catering for a blockbuster (most of which budget regularly extends above $100-$200 million dollars, which 10 and 20 years ago was extremely rare).
ProxCoques 10y ago
Well said. Giving non-inflation adjusted prices is such piss-poor journalism. It's as bad as the practice of making time-relative statements like "since last year", so the reader has to work out what that means.
- nl 10y ago
  Or "summertime". For half the planet that means precisely the opposite time of year.
  - harryjo 10y ago
    It's relevant to the local context of the story. The time of year doesn't really matter, the season does.
- forgingahead 10y ago
  Well, this is Slate after all.
  - aaron695 10y ago
    Slate is shit. But just because they have fallen doesn't mean you can make a statement that's crap about them, as per other comments.
- Rockslide 10y ago
  How is giving inflation-adjusted values any better than statements like "since last year"? Both are relative to the time the article was written and thus no longer adequate some years later.
- manarth 10y ago
  > time-relative statements like "since last year" And then omitting the publication-date from the article.
switch007 10y ago
Anyone confused as to how £25,000 could exchange to $125,000: we "changed currency" in 1971. A pre-decimalisation pound comprised 240 pence (instead of 100.)
- dmurray 10y ago
  The pound did not change its value in 1971 as a result of decimalisation. Nor did the shilling or the guinea, in fact - only the penny and amounts derived from that. The reason £25,000 was then worth $125,000 and is now worth less is the fluctuation of currency prices over time. You can see a graph and some macroeconomic reasoning for why the dollar has continually strengthened against the pound at, among other sources, http://www.miketodd.net/encyc/dollhist.htm http://www.miketodd.net/encyc/dollhist.htm
  - switch007 10y ago
    Thanks
- nl 10y ago
  No, this was about the exchange rate at the time.
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  As sterling has devalued over the last century it correlates nicely with the decline of British industry, especially manufacturing. Yet you still quite often hear some business group spokesman (CBI etc) on the news hoping for a devaluation of sterling so they can remain competitive. 100 years and they still haven't figured it out.
  - hughperkins 10y ago
    thats ok, we got rid of all our competiton now :P now, every british person has to buy our goods! we are saved! :D :P
ternaryoperator 10y ago
There is no doubt that the amount mentioned is the amount awarded at the time. There are several clues: 1) The amount. The odds that an amount awarded would, when adjusted for inflation, come out to exactly £25,000 is infinitessimal. 2) The language. The first and direct meaning of the sentence is that he's telling you what the jury awarded at the time of the award. 3) The lack of language. It's highly unlikely that a writer would give you the value today without mentioning that he'd converted the amount to "today's dollars." Given that all three clues point in the same direction, you can safely conclude without being explicitly told that the award amount is stated using the original number.
PhasmaFelis 10y ago
What? It's not adjusted for inflation unless they say it is, obviously. They didn't say whether the figure was in US or Singapore dollars, either, and for the same reason.

coldtea 10y ago

Well, for a big studio today it's close to the amount they spend on catering for a blockbuster (most of which budget regularly extends above $100-$200 million dollars, which 10 and 20 years ago was extremely rare).

ProxCoques 10y ago

Well said. Giving non-inflation adjusted prices is such piss-poor journalism. It's as bad as the practice of making time-relative statements like "since last year", so the reader has to work out what that means.

nl 10y ago
Or "summertime". For half the planet that means precisely the opposite time of year.
- harryjo 10y ago
  It's relevant to the local context of the story. The time of year doesn't really matter, the season does.
forgingahead 10y ago
Well, this is Slate after all.
- aaron695 10y ago
  Slate is shit. But just because they have fallen doesn't mean you can make a statement that's crap about them, as per other comments.
Rockslide 10y ago
How is giving inflation-adjusted values any better than statements like "since last year"? Both are relative to the time the article was written and thus no longer adequate some years later.
manarth 10y ago
> time-relative statements like "since last year" And then omitting the publication-date from the article.

switch007 10y ago

Anyone confused as to how £25,000 could exchange to $125,000: we "changed currency" in 1971. A pre-decimalisation pound comprised 240 pence (instead of 100.)

dmurray 10y ago
The pound did not change its value in 1971 as a result of decimalisation. Nor did the shilling or the guinea, in fact - only the penny and amounts derived from that. The reason £25,000 was then worth $125,000 and is now worth less is the fluctuation of currency prices over time. You can see a graph and some macroeconomic reasoning for why the dollar has continually strengthened against the pound at, among other sources, http://www.miketodd.net/encyc/dollhist.htm http://www.miketodd.net/encyc/dollhist.htm
- switch007 10y ago
  Thanks
nl 10y ago
No, this was about the exchange rate at the time.
anexprogrammer 10y ago
As sterling has devalued over the last century it correlates nicely with the decline of British industry, especially manufacturing. Yet you still quite often hear some business group spokesman (CBI etc) on the news hoping for a devaluation of sterling so they can remain competitive. 100 years and they still haven't figured it out.
- hughperkins 10y ago
  thats ok, we got rid of all our competiton now :P now, every british person has to buy our goods! we are saved! :D :P

ternaryoperator 10y ago

There is no doubt that the amount mentioned is the amount awarded at the time. There are several clues: 1) The amount. The odds that an amount awarded would, when adjusted for inflation, come out to exactly £25,000 is infinitessimal. 2) The language. The first and direct meaning of the sentence is that he's telling you what the jury awarded at the time of the award. 3) The lack of language. It's highly unlikely that a writer would give you the value today without mentioning that he'd converted the amount to "today's dollars." Given that all three clues point in the same direction, you can safely conclude without being explicitly told that the award amount is stated using the original number.

PhasmaFelis 10y ago

What? It's not adjusted for inflation unless they say it is, obviously. They didn't say whether the figure was in US or Singapore dollars, either, and for the same reason.