The museum · US
The 1900s room
An illustrated way in
Explore the house
Choose an object to open its source. The house brings separate observations together; it is not a reconstructed household.
Homeownership rate, 1900s Housing: rooms, rent, and tenure, 1901 Technology diffusion: telephone, automobile, electricity (~1900) Food basket: expenditure per family by item, 1901
The composite family. Each room is a statistical composite, assembled from separate distributions with separate sources. The family at the median income did not also have the median house, the median car, and the median diet. No single family described here ever existed; each fact tells you, in its provenance drawer, which real population it was measured from.
About this selection · Guided room
A selected route introduces this room's records. Its sources describe different populations; the route does not reconstruct a single household.
This describes how the page is arranged; it is not an evidence score.
Explore the objects with full labels 4 source-linked subjects
Objects & everyday life
A closer look
Each label names its measurement and date. Drawings identify subjects, not exact appliance models.
Homeownership rate, 1900s~46.5% (national, all households)Open source record ↗Housing: rooms, rent, and tenure, 1901Renting: 4.73 rooms/family, $24.60/room/yr avg rent. Owning: 5.92 rooms/family. Rent was 12.95% of expenditure.Open source record ↗Technology diffusion: telephone, automobile, electricity (~1900)Telephone: 9.2 per 1,000 population (1898), ~5% of households. Automobile: <1% (registration incomplete pre-1…Open source record ↗Food basket: expenditure per family by item, 1901Beef (fresh) $46.38, beef (salt) $10.61, hog (fresh) $15.64, hog (salt) $17.60, other meat $13.29, poultry $9…Open source record ↗
Follow a tour: The work that moved
Inspect the evidence
Browse the records
Every observation includes its measured population and source. Calculations identify their inputs; gaps explain what remains unavailable or unverified.
- Recorded observations
- 31
- Calculated exhibits
- 0
- Documented gaps
- 0
These are counts of collection entries, not people or households. Observations exclude gaps; calculated exhibits are counted separately. A gap is an unanswered or unverified item, not a zero value.
The home
3 observations · 0 gapsRenting: 4.73 rooms/family, $24.60/room/yr avg rent. Owning: 5.92 rooms/family. Rent was 12.95% of expenditure.A
Housing: rooms, rent, and tenure, 1901observed record
rooms per family; USD per room per year
Population measuredWage-earner families in selected industrial centers, 33 states — NOT a national median
Source recordU.S. Department of Labor, Commissioner of Labor (Carroll D. Wright) · 1903 · Tier A
Full record
Eighteenth Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor, 1903: Cost of Living and Retail Prices of Food
U.S. Department of Labor, Commissioner of Labor (Carroll D. Wright), 1903 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From the 18th Annual Report, Table III-K (p.370-371), OCR'd via GLM-OCR. Summary of families renting and owning homes by state and nativity. National narrative (p.73): families owning homes averaged 5.92 rooms vs 4.73 for renters; 1.16 rooms per individual (owners) vs 1.01 (renters). Average cost of rent per room was ~$24.60/yr ($24.66 native, $24.55 foreign). The survey covered 2,567 normal families in 33 states; families with boarders excluded from the housing table.
Source note: Data collected 1901, published 1903. Surveyed ~25,000 families. Sometimes called 'the 1901 survey.' Referenced in BLS 'How American Buying Habits Change' (1959, on FRASER) and academic literature. Direct Internet Archive link not yet found — access via FRASER series page or library copy. Government Printing Office, 1904.
Assumption: The composite family
Assumption: Urban/rural splits
U.S. Department of Labor, Commissioner of Labor (Carroll D. Wright), 1903 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From the 18th Annual Report, Table III-K (p.370-371), OCR'd via GLM-OCR. Summary of families renting and owning homes by state and nativity. National narrative (p.73): families owning homes averaged 5.92 rooms vs 4.73 for renters; 1.16 rooms per individual (owners) vs 1.01 (renters). Average cost of rent per room was ~$24.60/yr ($24.66 native, $24.55 foreign). The survey covered 2,567 normal families in 33 states; families with boarders excluded from the housing table.
Source note: Data collected 1901, published 1903. Surveyed ~25,000 families. Sometimes called 'the 1901 survey.' Referenced in BLS 'How American Buying Habits Change' (1959, on FRASER) and academic literature. Direct Internet Archive link not yet found — access via FRASER series page or library copy. Government Printing Office, 1904.
Assumption: The composite family
Assumption: Urban/rural splits
~46.5% (national, all households)A
Homeownership rate, 1900sobserved record
% of occupied housing units owner-occupied
Population measuredAll U.S. occupied housing units (decennial census)
Source recordU.S. Census Bureau · 2000 · Tier A
Full record
Homeownership Rate by State: 1900 to 2000
U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From Census homeownership time series (owner.pdf). National rate ~1900. This is for ALL households, not just the wage-earner families surveyed by the Commissioner of Labor — those families were overwhelmingly urban renters.
Source note: Time series of homeownership rates from 1900 to 2000 by state and nationally. 1950 national rate: 55.0%. 1940: 43.6%. 1960: 61.9%. Also see companion table: https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/tables/time-series/census-housing-tables/ownerchar.pdf
Assumption: The composite family
Assumption: Urban/rural splits
U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From Census homeownership time series (owner.pdf). National rate ~1900. This is for ALL households, not just the wage-earner families surveyed by the Commissioner of Labor — those families were overwhelmingly urban renters.
Source note: Time series of homeownership rates from 1900 to 2000 by state and nationally. 1950 national rate: 55.0%. 1940: 43.6%. 1960: 61.9%. Also see companion table: https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/tables/time-series/census-housing-tables/ownerchar.pdf
Assumption: The composite family
Assumption: Urban/rural splits
The budget
6 observations · 0 gaps$827.19A
Average annual family income, 1901observed record
USD per year, nominal
Population measured2,567 wage-earner families in 33 states, head earning <=$1,200/year, year 1901
Source recordU.S. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Labor · 1903 · Tier A
Full record
BLS Bulletin No. 49: Cost of Living and Retail Prices of Food (18th Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor)
U.S. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Labor, 1903 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Basis: Annual figure
Curator note: From BLS Bulletin No. 49, p.1138. This is an AVERAGE, not a median — the report did not compute medians. Population: 2,567 wage-earner families in 33 states, head earning ≤$1,200/year. NOTE: the University of Missouri guide cited this as $749 — the primary source says $827.19. The Missouri figure was wrong.
Source note: Primary source for 1900s room. Average income $827.19, average expenditure $768.54, food $326.90 (42.54%). Rent 12.95%, clothing 14.04%, fuel and light 5.25%. Average family size 5.31. NOTE: the University of Missouri guide cited average income as $749 — the primary source says $827.19. The $749 figure is WRONG; this is the correct figure from the report itself. File: bls_v08_0049_1903.pdf (268 pages, text-extractable via pdftotext).
Assumption: The composite family
Assumption: Values are shown in period money
Assumption: Income vs consumption
Assumption: The affordability axis
U.S. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Labor, 1903 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Basis: Annual figure
Curator note: From BLS Bulletin No. 49, p.1138. This is an AVERAGE, not a median — the report did not compute medians. Population: 2,567 wage-earner families in 33 states, head earning ≤$1,200/year. NOTE: the University of Missouri guide cited this as $749 — the primary source says $827.19. The Missouri figure was wrong.
Source note: Primary source for 1900s room. Average income $827.19, average expenditure $768.54, food $326.90 (42.54%). Rent 12.95%, clothing 14.04%, fuel and light 5.25%. Average family size 5.31. NOTE: the University of Missouri guide cited average income as $749 — the primary source says $827.19. The $749 figure is WRONG; this is the correct figure from the report itself. File: bls_v08_0049_1903.pdf (268 pages, text-extractable via pdftotext).
Assumption: The composite family
Assumption: Values are shown in period money
Assumption: Income vs consumption
Assumption: The affordability axis
$1,200A
Survey income ceiling, 1901observed record
USD per year — families earning more were excluded
Population measured2,567 wage-earner families in 33 states, head earning <=$1,200/year, year 1901
Source recordU.S. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Labor · 1903 · Tier A
Full record
BLS Bulletin No. 49: Cost of Living and Retail Prices of Food (18th Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor)
U.S. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Labor, 1903 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From BLS Bulletin No. 49, p.1138: 'the head of the family must be a wage worker or a salaried man earning not over $1,200 during the year.' This caps the survey at the lower/middle income range — upper-income families are not represented.
Source note: Primary source for 1900s room. Average income $827.19, average expenditure $768.54, food $326.90 (42.54%). Rent 12.95%, clothing 14.04%, fuel and light 5.25%. Average family size 5.31. NOTE: the University of Missouri guide cited average income as $749 — the primary source says $827.19. The $749 figure is WRONG; this is the correct figure from the report itself. File: bls_v08_0049_1903.pdf (268 pages, text-extractable via pdftotext).
Assumption: The composite family
U.S. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Labor, 1903 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From BLS Bulletin No. 49, p.1138: 'the head of the family must be a wage worker or a salaried man earning not over $1,200 during the year.' This caps the survey at the lower/middle income range — upper-income families are not represented.
Source note: Primary source for 1900s room. Average income $827.19, average expenditure $768.54, food $326.90 (42.54%). Rent 12.95%, clothing 14.04%, fuel and light 5.25%. Average family size 5.31. NOTE: the University of Missouri guide cited average income as $749 — the primary source says $827.19. The $749 figure is WRONG; this is the correct figure from the report itself. File: bls_v08_0049_1903.pdf (268 pages, text-extractable via pdftotext).
Assumption: The composite family
$768.54A
Average annual family expenditure, 1901observed record
USD per year, nominal
Population measured2,567 wage-earner families in 33 states, head earning <=$1,200/year, year 1901
Source recordU.S. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Labor · 1903 · Tier A
Full record
BLS Bulletin No. 49: Cost of Living and Retail Prices of Food (18th Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor)
U.S. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Labor, 1903 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From BLS Bulletin No. 49, p.1138. Average expenditure for all purposes. Families spent 93% of their income on average ($768.54 / $827.19), leaving a small surplus.
Source note: Primary source for 1900s room. Average income $827.19, average expenditure $768.54, food $326.90 (42.54%). Rent 12.95%, clothing 14.04%, fuel and light 5.25%. Average family size 5.31. NOTE: the University of Missouri guide cited average income as $749 — the primary source says $827.19. The $749 figure is WRONG; this is the correct figure from the report itself. File: bls_v08_0049_1903.pdf (268 pages, text-extractable via pdftotext).
Assumption: The composite family
Assumption: Values are shown in period money
Assumption: Income vs consumption
U.S. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Labor, 1903 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From BLS Bulletin No. 49, p.1138. Average expenditure for all purposes. Families spent 93% of their income on average ($768.54 / $827.19), leaving a small surplus.
Source note: Primary source for 1900s room. Average income $827.19, average expenditure $768.54, food $326.90 (42.54%). Rent 12.95%, clothing 14.04%, fuel and light 5.25%. Average family size 5.31. NOTE: the University of Missouri guide cited average income as $749 — the primary source says $827.19. The $749 figure is WRONG; this is the correct figure from the report itself. File: bls_v08_0049_1903.pdf (268 pages, text-extractable via pdftotext).
Assumption: The composite family
Assumption: Values are shown in period money
Assumption: Income vs consumption
Food 42.54%, rent 12.95%, clothing 14.04%, fuel & light 5.25%, furniture 3.42%, tobacco 1.42%, liquor/sickness/amusements 14.51%, misc 5.87%A
Full expenditure breakdown, 1901observed record
% of total family expenditure
Population measured2,567 wage-earner families in 33 states, head earning <=$1,200/year, year 1901
Source recordU.S. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Labor · 1903 · Tier A
Full record
BLS Bulletin No. 49: Cost of Living and Retail Prices of Food (18th Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor)
U.S. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Labor, 1903 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From BLS Bulletin No. 49, pp.1140-1141. Rent was 12.95% — the Missouri guide cited 13%, which matches. The report notes that no retail prices were available for rent, clothing, fuel, furniture, or tobacco for the time series (only food had retail price data).
Source note: Primary source for 1900s room. Average income $827.19, average expenditure $768.54, food $326.90 (42.54%). Rent 12.95%, clothing 14.04%, fuel and light 5.25%. Average family size 5.31. NOTE: the University of Missouri guide cited average income as $749 — the primary source says $827.19. The $749 figure is WRONG; this is the correct figure from the report itself. File: bls_v08_0049_1903.pdf (268 pages, text-extractable via pdftotext).
Assumption: The composite family
Assumption: Income vs consumption
U.S. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Labor, 1903 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From BLS Bulletin No. 49, pp.1140-1141. Rent was 12.95% — the Missouri guide cited 13%, which matches. The report notes that no retail prices were available for rent, clothing, fuel, furniture, or tobacco for the time series (only food had retail price data).
Source note: Primary source for 1900s room. Average income $827.19, average expenditure $768.54, food $326.90 (42.54%). Rent 12.95%, clothing 14.04%, fuel and light 5.25%. Average family size 5.31. NOTE: the University of Missouri guide cited average income as $749 — the primary source says $827.19. The $749 figure is WRONG; this is the correct figure from the report itself. File: bls_v08_0049_1903.pdf (268 pages, text-extractable via pdftotext).
Assumption: The composite family
Assumption: Income vs consumption
5.31A
Average family size, 1901observed record
persons per family
Population measured2,567 wage-earner families in 33 states, head earning <=$1,200/year, year 1901
Source recordU.S. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Labor · 1903 · Tier A
Full record
BLS Bulletin No. 49: Cost of Living and Retail Prices of Food (18th Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor)
U.S. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Labor, 1903 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From BLS Bulletin No. 49, p.1138. 0.7 persons above the Census 1900 national average of 4.61. The report notes this was not due to intentional selection of larger families.
Source note: Primary source for 1900s room. Average income $827.19, average expenditure $768.54, food $326.90 (42.54%). Rent 12.95%, clothing 14.04%, fuel and light 5.25%. Average family size 5.31. NOTE: the University of Missouri guide cited average income as $749 — the primary source says $827.19. The $749 figure is WRONG; this is the correct figure from the report itself. File: bls_v08_0049_1903.pdf (268 pages, text-extractable via pdftotext).
Assumption: The composite family
U.S. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Labor, 1903 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From BLS Bulletin No. 49, p.1138. 0.7 persons above the Census 1900 national average of 4.61. The report notes this was not due to intentional selection of larger families.
Source note: Primary source for 1900s room. Average income $827.19, average expenditure $768.54, food $326.90 (42.54%). Rent 12.95%, clothing 14.04%, fuel and light 5.25%. Average family size 5.31. NOTE: the University of Missouri guide cited average income as $749 — the primary source says $827.19. The $749 figure is WRONG; this is the correct figure from the report itself. File: bls_v08_0049_1903.pdf (268 pages, text-extractable via pdftotext).
Assumption: The composite family
The table
4 observations · 0 gaps$326.90A
Average annual food expenditure, 1901observed record
USD per family per year, nominal
Population measured2,567 wage-earner families in 33 states, head earning <=$1,200/year, year 1901
Source recordU.S. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Labor · 1903 · Tier A
Full record
BLS Bulletin No. 49: Cost of Living and Retail Prices of Food (18th Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor)
U.S. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Labor, 1903 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From BLS Bulletin No. 49, p.1138. This is the total food expenditure per family per year — $6.29 per week. The report also collected retail prices for staple foods from 814 retail merchants in the same localities.
Source note: Primary source for 1900s room. Average income $827.19, average expenditure $768.54, food $326.90 (42.54%). Rent 12.95%, clothing 14.04%, fuel and light 5.25%. Average family size 5.31. NOTE: the University of Missouri guide cited average income as $749 — the primary source says $827.19. The $749 figure is WRONG; this is the correct figure from the report itself. File: bls_v08_0049_1903.pdf (268 pages, text-extractable via pdftotext).
Assumption: The composite family
Assumption: Values are shown in period money
U.S. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Labor, 1903 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From BLS Bulletin No. 49, p.1138. This is the total food expenditure per family per year — $6.29 per week. The report also collected retail prices for staple foods from 814 retail merchants in the same localities.
Source note: Primary source for 1900s room. Average income $827.19, average expenditure $768.54, food $326.90 (42.54%). Rent 12.95%, clothing 14.04%, fuel and light 5.25%. Average family size 5.31. NOTE: the University of Missouri guide cited average income as $749 — the primary source says $827.19. The $749 figure is WRONG; this is the correct figure from the report itself. File: bls_v08_0049_1903.pdf (268 pages, text-extractable via pdftotext).
Assumption: The composite family
Assumption: Values are shown in period money
Beef (fresh) $46.38, beef (salt) $10.61, hog (fresh) $15.64, hog (salt) $17.60, other meat $13.29, poultry $9.91, fish $8.35, eggs $16.17, milk $20.03, butter $27.73A
Food basket: expenditure per family by item, 1901observed record
USD per family per year, nominal (avg among families buying each item)
Population measuredWage-earner families in selected industrial centers, 33 states — NOT a national median
Source recordU.S. Department of Labor, Commissioner of Labor (Carroll D. Wright) · 1903 · Tier A
Full record
Eighteenth Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor, 1903: Cost of Living and Retail Prices of Food
U.S. Department of Labor, Commissioner of Labor (Carroll D. Wright), 1903 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From the 18th Annual Report, Table IV-M (p.499), OCR'd via GLM-OCR. Summary of expenditure per family for various items of food, by nativity of head of family. National totals for 1,578 families. These 10 categories total $185.71 — 56.8% of the $326.90 total food expenditure. The remainder covers flour, bread, vegetables, fruits, sugar, coffee, etc. Beef (fresh) was the single largest food expenditure at $46.38. Butter ($27.73) exceeded milk ($20.03) — reflecting the era's dietary patterns.
Source note: Data collected 1901, published 1903. Surveyed ~25,000 families. Sometimes called 'the 1901 survey.' Referenced in BLS 'How American Buying Habits Change' (1959, on FRASER) and academic literature. Direct Internet Archive link not yet found — access via FRASER series page or library copy. Government Printing Office, 1904.
Assumption: The composite family
Assumption: Values are shown in period money
U.S. Department of Labor, Commissioner of Labor (Carroll D. Wright), 1903 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From the 18th Annual Report, Table IV-M (p.499), OCR'd via GLM-OCR. Summary of expenditure per family for various items of food, by nativity of head of family. National totals for 1,578 families. These 10 categories total $185.71 — 56.8% of the $326.90 total food expenditure. The remainder covers flour, bread, vegetables, fruits, sugar, coffee, etc. Beef (fresh) was the single largest food expenditure at $46.38. Butter ($27.73) exceeded milk ($20.03) — reflecting the era's dietary patterns.
Source note: Data collected 1901, published 1903. Surveyed ~25,000 families. Sometimes called 'the 1901 survey.' Referenced in BLS 'How American Buying Habits Change' (1959, on FRASER) and academic literature. Direct Internet Archive link not yet found — access via FRASER series page or library copy. Government Printing Office, 1904.
Assumption: The composite family
Assumption: Values are shown in period money
54 cigarettes per adult per yearA
Adult per capita cigarette consumption, 1900observed record
cigarettes per adult (≥18 years) per year
Population measuredU.S. adults ≥18 years (NHIS) and total U.S. cigarette consumption (USDA)
Source recordCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) · 1994 · Tier A
Full record
Surveillance for Selected Tobacco-Use Behaviors -- United States, 1900-1994
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1994 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From CDC MMWR Surveillance Summary Vol. 43 No. SS-3, Table 1. USDA estimate based on federal cigarette tax data and Census adult population. Total U.S. consumption was 2.5 billion cigarettes in 1900. Cigarettes were a minor product — chewing tobacco and cigars were dominant.
Source note: MMWR Surveillance Summary Vol. 43 No. SS-3. Table 1: per capita cigarette consumption 1900-1994 from USDA Economic Research Service (based on BATF tax data, imports, Census population). Table 2: adult smoking prevalence 1965-1991 from NHIS. Per capita = cigarettes per adult ≥18 per year.
Assumption: The composite family
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1994 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From CDC MMWR Surveillance Summary Vol. 43 No. SS-3, Table 1. USDA estimate based on federal cigarette tax data and Census adult population. Total U.S. consumption was 2.5 billion cigarettes in 1900. Cigarettes were a minor product — chewing tobacco and cigars were dominant.
Source note: MMWR Surveillance Summary Vol. 43 No. SS-3. Table 1: per capita cigarette consumption 1900-1994 from USDA Economic Research Service (based on BATF tax data, imports, Census population). Table 2: adult smoking prevalence 1965-1991 from NHIS. Per capita = cigarettes per adult ≥18 per year.
Assumption: The composite family
2.39 gallons of pure ethanol per person per year (1901-1905 average)A
Alcohol consumed per person, 1901-1905observed record
gallons of pure ethanol per person per year
Population measuredThe whole U.S. population aged 15 and older before 1970, and aged 14 and older from 1970 onward — not drinkers only, and not adults only
Source recordNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Division of Epidemiology and Prevention Research (Alcohol Epidemiologic Data System) · 2025 · Tier A
Full record
Apparent Per Capita Alcohol Consumption: National, State, and Regional Trends, 1977-2023 (Surveillance Report #122)
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Division of Epidemiology and Prevention Research (Alcohol Epidemiologic Data System), 2025 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: Table 1 publishes no single-year figure this early: the record is grouped into five-year ranges, and 1901-1905 is the only one lying wholly inside the decade. Spirits still supplied more ethanol per head than beer had a generation earlier; the range is the level national Prohibition would interrupt.
Source note: Table 1, 'Apparent per capita ethanol consumption, United States, 1850-2023', all-beverages column. Apparent consumption is derived from legal beverage sales and shipment data collected from States, the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association and industry sources, divided by Census population: it measures what the state could count, not what was drunk, which is why national Prohibition appears in the table as the literal word '(Prohibition)' and no numbers for 1920-1933. The report's own note records that data prior to 1977 are from Hyman et al. 1980, so the early half of this official series is republished scholarly work. Pre-1934 figures are published as multi-year ranges, not single years. The archived copy in samples/ was confirmed sha256-identical to the document served at this URL on 2026-09-01 (see docs/verification-log.md).
Assumption: The composite family
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Division of Epidemiology and Prevention Research (Alcohol Epidemiologic Data System), 2025 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: Table 1 publishes no single-year figure this early: the record is grouped into five-year ranges, and 1901-1905 is the only one lying wholly inside the decade. Spirits still supplied more ethanol per head than beer had a generation earlier; the range is the level national Prohibition would interrupt.
Source note: Table 1, 'Apparent per capita ethanol consumption, United States, 1850-2023', all-beverages column. Apparent consumption is derived from legal beverage sales and shipment data collected from States, the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association and industry sources, divided by Census population: it measures what the state could count, not what was drunk, which is why national Prohibition appears in the table as the literal word '(Prohibition)' and no numbers for 1920-1933. The report's own note records that data prior to 1977 are from Hyman et al. 1980, so the early half of this official series is republished scholarly work. Pre-1934 figures are published as multi-year ranges, not single years. The archived copy in samples/ was confirmed sha256-identical to the document served at this URL on 2026-09-01 (see docs/verification-log.md).
Assumption: The composite family
The day
14 observations · 0 gaps36.00 deaths per 100 million vehicle-miles travelledA
Road deaths per 100 million vehicle-miles, 1900observed record
deaths per 100 million vehicle-miles travelled
Population measuredAll persons killed in motor-vehicle traffic crashes on US public roads (the States and the District of Columbia), measured against total vehicle-miles travelled — not drivers only and not vehicle occupants only
Source recordFederal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Policy Information · 2025 · Tier A
Full record
Table FI-200: Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities, 1900-2023 (Highway Statistics 2023)
Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Policy Information, 2025 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: The earliest year FHWA publishes, and the thinnest: the rate rests on 36 recorded deaths against an estimated 100 million vehicle-miles. It is a real published figure, not a reconstruction, but the exposure behind it is tiny and the travel estimate is a back-cast.
Source note: The whole 1900-2023 span in one FHWA table, so the fatality-rate series needs no splice between estimate and registration eras. Four rate columns are published side by side (per 1,000 miles of road, per 100 million annual VMT, per 100,000 registered motor vehicles, per 100,000 licensed drivers); the museum takes the per-100-million-VMT column, and the extraction script recomputes it from the table's own fatality and VMT columns for every year rather than trusting its position. FHWA footnote (3) records a definitional change: beginning in 1976 the count includes only people who died within 30 days of the crash, so the earlier years are counted on a wider window and the two halves are not the same measurement. The 1900-1995 rows were cross-checked against FHWA's separately-published Highway Statistics Summary to 1995 (April 1997): 95 of 96 years reproduce exactly, the exception being 1995, that publication's terminal provisional year, since revised from 41,770 deaths to 41,817 (see docs/verification-log.md).
Assumption: The composite family
Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Policy Information, 2025 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: The earliest year FHWA publishes, and the thinnest: the rate rests on 36 recorded deaths against an estimated 100 million vehicle-miles. It is a real published figure, not a reconstruction, but the exposure behind it is tiny and the travel estimate is a back-cast.
Source note: The whole 1900-2023 span in one FHWA table, so the fatality-rate series needs no splice between estimate and registration eras. Four rate columns are published side by side (per 1,000 miles of road, per 100 million annual VMT, per 100,000 registered motor vehicles, per 100,000 licensed drivers); the museum takes the per-100-million-VMT column, and the extraction script recomputes it from the table's own fatality and VMT columns for every year rather than trusting its position. FHWA footnote (3) records a definitional change: beginning in 1976 the count includes only people who died within 30 days of the crash, so the earlier years are counted on a wider window and the two halves are not the same measurement. The 1900-1995 rows were cross-checked against FHWA's separately-published Highway Statistics Summary to 1995 (April 1997): 95 of 96 years reproduce exactly, the exception being 1995, that publication's terminal provisional year, since revised from 41,770 deaths to 41,817 (see docs/verification-log.md).
Assumption: The composite family
59.0A
Average weekly hours, manufacturing, 1900observed record
hours per week
Population measuredVarious national aggregates (depends on table)
Source recordU.S. Census Bureau · 1975 · Tier A
Full record
Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970 (Bicentennial Edition)
U.S. Census Bureau, 1975 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From Historical Statistics of the United States (Colonial Times to 1970), Series D 765, p.76 (OCR'd via GLM-OCR). Total manufacturing, all workers. Union workers averaged 53.0 hrs; payroll workers 62.1 hrs. By 1910, hours had fallen to 56.6. The previous Tier D figure of '56' from the Missouri guide was close but unsourced.
Source note: Free on Internet Archive. Contains population, labor, prices, housing, and diffusion series spanning colonial times to 1970. Essential for pre-1940 decades where no dedicated survey exists. Predecessor to the Millennial Edition.
Assumption: The composite family
U.S. Census Bureau, 1975 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From Historical Statistics of the United States (Colonial Times to 1970), Series D 765, p.76 (OCR'd via GLM-OCR). Total manufacturing, all workers. Union workers averaged 53.0 hrs; payroll workers 62.1 hrs. By 1910, hours had fallen to 56.6. The previous Tier D figure of '56' from the Missouri guide was close but unsourced.
Source note: Free on Internet Archive. Contains population, labor, prices, housing, and diffusion series spanning colonial times to 1970. Essential for pre-1940 decades where no dedicated survey exists. Predecessor to the Millennial Edition.
Assumption: The composite family
$0.250/hour ($14.20/week at 56.8 hrs)A
Average hourly earnings, manufacturing, 1908observed record
USD per hour, nominal
Population measuredProduction workers in manufacturing (national average, payroll data)
Source recordU.S. Census Bureau · 1975 · Tier A
Full record
Historical Statistics: Average Hourly Earnings of Manufacturing Production Workers (Series D 766, D 765-767, D 802-804)
U.S. Census Bureau, 1975 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Basis: Hourly rate
Curator note: From Historical Statistics of the United States, Series D 766 (hourly earnings). The anchor year is 1908 ($0.250/hr = 25 cents, exact) because the 1900 figure ($0.216/hr) is not representable in integer cents — per Plan 013 D2, the anchor picks the in-decade year whose published figure lands on a cent boundary. Weekly earnings: $0.250 x 56.8 hrs = $14.20. The 1900 figure ($0.216, 59.0 hrs, $12.74/wk) is the decade's start; 1908 is mid-decade. The 8-year gap to the income anchor (1900-01) is flagged by the affordability comparator.
Source note: Series D 766 (hourly earnings 1890-1914), D 765-767 (manufacturing production workers 1909-1929), D 802-804 (all manufacturing 1919-1948). Pre-FRED CES wage data. Used as the wage anchor for 1900s-1930s rooms (Plan 013). The population skews urban, industrial, male — see the manufacturing-wage-proxy assumption.
Assumption: Values are shown in period money
Assumption: Manufacturing wages as the early-era worker proxy
U.S. Census Bureau, 1975 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Basis: Hourly rate
Curator note: From Historical Statistics of the United States, Series D 766 (hourly earnings). The anchor year is 1908 ($0.250/hr = 25 cents, exact) because the 1900 figure ($0.216/hr) is not representable in integer cents — per Plan 013 D2, the anchor picks the in-decade year whose published figure lands on a cent boundary. Weekly earnings: $0.250 x 56.8 hrs = $14.20. The 1900 figure ($0.216, 59.0 hrs, $12.74/wk) is the decade's start; 1908 is mid-decade. The 8-year gap to the income anchor (1900-01) is flagged by the affordability comparator.
Source note: Series D 766 (hourly earnings 1890-1914), D 765-767 (manufacturing production workers 1909-1929), D 802-804 (all manufacturing 1919-1948). Pre-FRED CES wage data. Used as the wage anchor for 1900s-1930s rooms (Plan 013). The population skews urban, industrial, male — see the manufacturing-wage-proxy assumption.
Assumption: Values are shown in period money
Assumption: Manufacturing wages as the early-era worker proxy
$6.17A
Average weekly earnings, wage-earning women, 1905observed record
USD per week, nominal
Population measuredWage-earners in manufacturing establishments, United States
Source recordU.S. Census Bureau · 1907 · Tier A
Full record
Census of Manufactures, 1905: Part I
U.S. Census Bureau, 1907 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From the 1905 Census of Manufactures, Part I, page lxxxix. Women earned $6.17/week vs men's $11.16/week — a 55% gap. Women's earnings were $4.17 above the minimum and $4.90 below the maximum. Confirmed by Hutchinson, 'Women's Wages' (archive.org) and Missouri Prices & Wages guide. Upgraded from Tier D to Tier A: figure is from an official Census Bureau statistical series.
Source note: 1905 special Census of Manufactures. Part I, page lxxxix reports average weekly earnings by sex: men $11.16/week, women $6.17/week — a 55% gap. Women's earnings were $4.17 above the minimum and $4.90 below the maximum. Cited in 'Earnings of Wage-Earners' chapter (Census.gov PDF). Also confirmed by Hutchinson, 'Women's Wages' (archive.org) and Missouri Prices & Wages guide.
Assumption: Values are shown in period money
U.S. Census Bureau, 1907 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From the 1905 Census of Manufactures, Part I, page lxxxix. Women earned $6.17/week vs men's $11.16/week — a 55% gap. Women's earnings were $4.17 above the minimum and $4.90 below the maximum. Confirmed by Hutchinson, 'Women's Wages' (archive.org) and Missouri Prices & Wages guide. Upgraded from Tier D to Tier A: figure is from an official Census Bureau statistical series.
Source note: 1905 special Census of Manufactures. Part I, page lxxxix reports average weekly earnings by sex: men $11.16/week, women $6.17/week — a 55% gap. Women's earnings were $4.17 above the minimum and $4.90 below the maximum. Cited in 'Earnings of Wage-Earners' chapter (Census.gov PDF). Also confirmed by Hutchinson, 'Women's Wages' (archive.org) and Missouri Prices & Wages guide.
Assumption: Values are shown in period money
48.2 years (white male), 51.1 years (white female)A
Life expectancy at birth, 1900-02observed record
years at birth
Population measuredVarious national aggregates (depends on table)
Source recordU.S. Census Bureau · 1975 · Tier A
Full record
Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970 (Bicentennial Edition)
U.S. Census Bureau, 1975 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From Historical Statistics of the United States, Series B 116-117 (Expectation of Life at Specified Ages), p.76 (OCR'd via GLM-OCR). Period 1900-02. At age 20: male 42.2, female 43.8. At age 40: male 27.7, female 29.2. By 1909-11: male 50.2, female 53.6. The previous Tier D figure of '48 years' from the Missouri guide was accurate.
Source note: Free on Internet Archive. Contains population, labor, prices, housing, and diffusion series spanning colonial times to 1970. Essential for pre-1940 decades where no dedicated survey exists. Predecessor to the Millennial Edition.
U.S. Census Bureau, 1975 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From Historical Statistics of the United States, Series B 116-117 (Expectation of Life at Specified Ages), p.76 (OCR'd via GLM-OCR). Period 1900-02. At age 20: male 42.2, female 43.8. At age 40: male 27.7, female 29.2. By 1909-11: male 50.2, female 53.6. The previous Tier D figure of '48 years' from the Missouri guide was accurate.
Source note: Free on Internet Archive. Contains population, labor, prices, housing, and diffusion series spanning colonial times to 1970. Essential for pre-1940 decades where no dedicated survey exists. Predecessor to the Millennial Edition.
~100 per 1,000 live birthsA
Infant mortality rate, 1900observed record
deaths before age 1 per 1,000 live births
Population measuredU.S. resident population (birth and death certificates)
Source recordCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · 1999 · Tier A
Full record
Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Healthier Mothers and Babies (MMWR Vol. 48, No. 38)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From CDC MMWR Vol. 48, No. 38 (1999): 'approximately 100 infants died before age 1 year' per 1,000 live births at the beginning of the 20th century. In some U.S. cities, up to 30% of infants died before reaching their first birthday. The 1915 rate (first year of reliable national data) was 99.9 per 1,000. By 1997: 7.2 per 1,000 — a >90% decline. This is one of the great public health achievements of the 20th century: sanitation, milk pasteurization, antibiotics, and neonatal intensive care.
Source note: CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report article summarizing 20th-century declines in infant and maternal mortality. Key data: 1900 infant mortality ~100 per 1,000 live births; 1997 rate 7.2 per 1,000. Total decline 1915-1997: >90%. Includes Table 1 with percentage reductions by decade period. Also reports 1997 infant deaths: 28,045.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From CDC MMWR Vol. 48, No. 38 (1999): 'approximately 100 infants died before age 1 year' per 1,000 live births at the beginning of the 20th century. In some U.S. cities, up to 30% of infants died before reaching their first birthday. The 1915 rate (first year of reliable national data) was 99.9 per 1,000. By 1997: 7.2 per 1,000 — a >90% decline. This is one of the great public health achievements of the 20th century: sanitation, milk pasteurization, antibiotics, and neonatal intensive care.
Source note: CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report article summarizing 20th-century declines in infant and maternal mortality. Key data: 1900 infant mortality ~100 per 1,000 live births; 1997 rate 7.2 per 1,000. Total decline 1915-1997: >90%. Includes Table 1 with percentage reductions by decade period. Also reports 1997 infant deaths: 28,045.
46.8C
Women's weekly unpaid home-production hours, 1900observed record
hours per week, prime-age women (ages 18–64)
Population measuredPrime-age women and men, ages 18–64 (benchmark years 1900–2005); also all-ages per-capita and per-household aggregates
Source recordCambridge University Press (Journal of Economic History) · 2009 · Tier C
Full record
Time Spent in Home Production in the Twentieth-Century United States: New Estimates from Old Data
Cambridge University Press (Journal of Economic History), 2009 · source
Confidence: C — Reconstructed from period surveys
Curator note: Ramey (2009) Table 6A, 'All Prime-Age Women' column. Reconstruction from historical time-diary studies (Purnell Act 1920s, Wilson 1929, USDA 1944) linked to AHTUS/BLS surveys from 1965. Includes food prep, house cleaning, clothing care, childcare, purchasing, and household management. Numbers in italics in source = partially extrapolated. Draft version (NBER w13985) has identical values. Splice caveat: Ramey measures women-specific home production ages 18-64; ATUS (2020s room) measures all-adult household activities age 15+ — a concept change that must caveat when plotted together.
Source note: Valerie A. Ramey, JEconHist 69(1), March 2009, pp. 1–47. Reconstruction from historical time-diary studies (Purnell Act studies 1920s, Wilson 1929, USDA 1944) linked to AHTUS/BLS modern surveys. Draft version: NBER Working Paper w13985 (May 2008, 63pp) — data tables are numerically identical to the published version; differences are prose tightening and table reformatting (5→5A/5B, etc.). Tier C (period-survey reconstruction). Key tables: Table 5A (nonemployed women), Table 6A (all women, prime-age), Table 7 (men, prime-age), Table 8A (all ages), Table 3 (component breakdown). Note: Ramey does not use the 1992-94 survey (missing data), so no 1990s benchmark. Splice point to ATUS: Ramey measures women-specific home production ages 18-64; ATUS measures all-adult household activities age 15+ — a concept splice that must caveat (Plan 004 Measure guard).
Assumption: The composite family
Cambridge University Press (Journal of Economic History), 2009 · source
Confidence: C — Reconstructed from period surveys
Curator note: Ramey (2009) Table 6A, 'All Prime-Age Women' column. Reconstruction from historical time-diary studies (Purnell Act 1920s, Wilson 1929, USDA 1944) linked to AHTUS/BLS surveys from 1965. Includes food prep, house cleaning, clothing care, childcare, purchasing, and household management. Numbers in italics in source = partially extrapolated. Draft version (NBER w13985) has identical values. Splice caveat: Ramey measures women-specific home production ages 18-64; ATUS (2020s room) measures all-adult household activities age 15+ — a concept change that must caveat when plotted together.
Source note: Valerie A. Ramey, JEconHist 69(1), March 2009, pp. 1–47. Reconstruction from historical time-diary studies (Purnell Act studies 1920s, Wilson 1929, USDA 1944) linked to AHTUS/BLS modern surveys. Draft version: NBER Working Paper w13985 (May 2008, 63pp) — data tables are numerically identical to the published version; differences are prose tightening and table reformatting (5→5A/5B, etc.). Tier C (period-survey reconstruction). Key tables: Table 5A (nonemployed women), Table 6A (all women, prime-age), Table 7 (men, prime-age), Table 8A (all ages), Table 3 (component breakdown). Note: Ramey does not use the 1992-94 survey (missing data), so no 1990s benchmark. Splice point to ATUS: Ramey measures women-specific home production ages 18-64; ATUS measures all-adult household activities age 15+ — a concept splice that must caveat (Plan 004 Measure guard).
Assumption: The composite family
3.9C
Men's weekly unpaid home-production hours, 1900observed record
hours per week, prime-age men (ages 18–64)
Population measuredPrime-age women and men, ages 18–64 (benchmark years 1900–2005); also all-ages per-capita and per-household aggregates
Source recordCambridge University Press (Journal of Economic History) · 2009 · Tier C
Full record
Time Spent in Home Production in the Twentieth-Century United States: New Estimates from Old Data
Cambridge University Press (Journal of Economic History), 2009 · source
Confidence: C — Reconstructed from period surveys
Curator note: Ramey (2009) Table 7, 'All Prime-Age Men' column. Early estimates from Purnell Act studies and Lundberg et al. (1934); 1965+ from AHTUS/BLS. Men's hours rose 13 hrs/week across the century (3.9→16.8), partially offsetting women's decline. Numbers in italics in source = partially extrapolated.
Source note: Valerie A. Ramey, JEconHist 69(1), March 2009, pp. 1–47. Reconstruction from historical time-diary studies (Purnell Act studies 1920s, Wilson 1929, USDA 1944) linked to AHTUS/BLS modern surveys. Draft version: NBER Working Paper w13985 (May 2008, 63pp) — data tables are numerically identical to the published version; differences are prose tightening and table reformatting (5→5A/5B, etc.). Tier C (period-survey reconstruction). Key tables: Table 5A (nonemployed women), Table 6A (all women, prime-age), Table 7 (men, prime-age), Table 8A (all ages), Table 3 (component breakdown). Note: Ramey does not use the 1992-94 survey (missing data), so no 1990s benchmark. Splice point to ATUS: Ramey measures women-specific home production ages 18-64; ATUS measures all-adult household activities age 15+ — a concept splice that must caveat (Plan 004 Measure guard).
Assumption: The composite family
Cambridge University Press (Journal of Economic History), 2009 · source
Confidence: C — Reconstructed from period surveys
Curator note: Ramey (2009) Table 7, 'All Prime-Age Men' column. Early estimates from Purnell Act studies and Lundberg et al. (1934); 1965+ from AHTUS/BLS. Men's hours rose 13 hrs/week across the century (3.9→16.8), partially offsetting women's decline. Numbers in italics in source = partially extrapolated.
Source note: Valerie A. Ramey, JEconHist 69(1), March 2009, pp. 1–47. Reconstruction from historical time-diary studies (Purnell Act studies 1920s, Wilson 1929, USDA 1944) linked to AHTUS/BLS modern surveys. Draft version: NBER Working Paper w13985 (May 2008, 63pp) — data tables are numerically identical to the published version; differences are prose tightening and table reformatting (5→5A/5B, etc.). Tier C (period-survey reconstruction). Key tables: Table 5A (nonemployed women), Table 6A (all women, prime-age), Table 7 (men, prime-age), Table 8A (all ages), Table 3 (component breakdown). Note: Ramey does not use the 1992-94 survey (missing data), so no 1990s benchmark. Splice point to ATUS: Ramey measures women-specific home production ages 18-64; ATUS measures all-adult household activities age 15+ — a concept splice that must caveat (Plan 004 Measure guard).
Assumption: The composite family
78C
Total home-production hours per household, 1900observed record
hours per week, all household members combined
Population measuredPrime-age women and men, ages 18–64 (benchmark years 1900–2005); also all-ages per-capita and per-household aggregates
Source recordCambridge University Press (Journal of Economic History) · 2009 · Tier C
Full record
Time Spent in Home Production in the Twentieth-Century United States: New Estimates from Old Data
Cambridge University Press (Journal of Economic History), 2009 · source
Confidence: C — Reconstructed from period surveys
Curator note: Ramey (2009), aggregate home-production hours divided by number of households. Fell from 78 hrs/week (1900) to 49 hrs/week (2005), a 37% decline. Household size fell 45% (4.7→2.6 persons) over the same period, so per-household hours fell proportionally less than household size. Per-capita (all ages) was 16.4 hrs/week — slightly higher in 2005 than 1900 because fewer children (who do little home production) are in the population.
Source note: Valerie A. Ramey, JEconHist 69(1), March 2009, pp. 1–47. Reconstruction from historical time-diary studies (Purnell Act studies 1920s, Wilson 1929, USDA 1944) linked to AHTUS/BLS modern surveys. Draft version: NBER Working Paper w13985 (May 2008, 63pp) — data tables are numerically identical to the published version; differences are prose tightening and table reformatting (5→5A/5B, etc.). Tier C (period-survey reconstruction). Key tables: Table 5A (nonemployed women), Table 6A (all women, prime-age), Table 7 (men, prime-age), Table 8A (all ages), Table 3 (component breakdown). Note: Ramey does not use the 1992-94 survey (missing data), so no 1990s benchmark. Splice point to ATUS: Ramey measures women-specific home production ages 18-64; ATUS measures all-adult household activities age 15+ — a concept splice that must caveat (Plan 004 Measure guard).
Assumption: The composite family
Cambridge University Press (Journal of Economic History), 2009 · source
Confidence: C — Reconstructed from period surveys
Curator note: Ramey (2009), aggregate home-production hours divided by number of households. Fell from 78 hrs/week (1900) to 49 hrs/week (2005), a 37% decline. Household size fell 45% (4.7→2.6 persons) over the same period, so per-household hours fell proportionally less than household size. Per-capita (all ages) was 16.4 hrs/week — slightly higher in 2005 than 1900 because fewer children (who do little home production) are in the population.
Source note: Valerie A. Ramey, JEconHist 69(1), March 2009, pp. 1–47. Reconstruction from historical time-diary studies (Purnell Act studies 1920s, Wilson 1929, USDA 1944) linked to AHTUS/BLS modern surveys. Draft version: NBER Working Paper w13985 (May 2008, 63pp) — data tables are numerically identical to the published version; differences are prose tightening and table reformatting (5→5A/5B, etc.). Tier C (period-survey reconstruction). Key tables: Table 5A (nonemployed women), Table 6A (all women, prime-age), Table 7 (men, prime-age), Table 8A (all ages), Table 3 (component breakdown). Note: Ramey does not use the 1992-94 survey (missing data), so no 1990s benchmark. Splice point to ATUS: Ramey measures women-specific home production ages 18-64; ATUS measures all-adult household activities age 15+ — a concept splice that must caveat (Plan 004 Measure guard).
Assumption: The composite family
~5.6%A
Married women's labor force participation, 1900observed record
% of married women (husband present) in the civilian labor force
Population measuredVarious national aggregates (depends on table)
Source recordU.S. Census Bureau · 1975 · Tier A
Full record
Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970 (Bicentennial Edition)
U.S. Census Bureau, 1975 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: Population-level labor-force participation of married women, not the number of earners in an individual family. Historical gainful-worker measures and modern labor-force participation are not identical; neither this percentage nor marital status alone establishes household income sources.
Source note: Free on Internet Archive. Contains population, labor, prices, housing, and diffusion series spanning colonial times to 1970. Essential for pre-1940 decades where no dedicated survey exists. Predecessor to the Millennial Edition.
Assumption: The composite family
U.S. Census Bureau, 1975 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: Population-level labor-force participation of married women, not the number of earners in an individual family. Historical gainful-worker measures and modern labor-force participation are not identical; neither this percentage nor marital status alone establishes household income sources.
Source note: Free on Internet Archive. Contains population, labor, prices, housing, and diffusion series spanning colonial times to 1970. Essential for pre-1940 decades where no dedicated survey exists. Predecessor to the Millennial Edition.
Assumption: The composite family
Men: 25.9, Women: 21.9A
Median age at first marriage, 1900observed record
years (median age at first marriage)
Population measuredU.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population (CPS/decennial census)
Source recordU.S. Census Bureau · 2023 · Tier A
Full record
Census Historical Table MS-2: Median Age at First Marriage
U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From Census Table MS-2 (ms2-median-age-first-marriage.xls). Decennial census. Men married at 25.9, women at 21.9 — a 4-year gap. The composite four-person family typically formed in the early-to-mid 20s for the wife, late 20s for the husband. By 1950: 22.8/20.3 (mid-century low).
Source note: Table MS-2: Median age at first marriage by sex, 1890 to present. Decennial census data 1890-2000; CPS data for intervening years and 2010+. File: ms2-median-age-first-marriage.xls. The median age at first marriage declined from ~26 (men) / ~22 (women) in 1890 to a mid-century low of ~22.5 / 20.3 in 1956, then rose steadily to ~30+ / ~28+ by 2023.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From Census Table MS-2 (ms2-median-age-first-marriage.xls). Decennial census. Men married at 25.9, women at 21.9 — a 4-year gap. The composite four-person family typically formed in the early-to-mid 20s for the wife, late 20s for the husband. By 1950: 22.8/20.3 (mid-century low).
Source note: Table MS-2: Median age at first marriage by sex, 1890 to present. Decennial census data 1890-2000; CPS data for intervening years and 2010+. File: ms2-median-age-first-marriage.xls. The median age at first marriage declined from ~26 (men) / ~22 (women) in 1890 to a mid-century low of ~22.5 / 20.3 in 1956, then rose steadily to ~30+ / ~28+ by 2023.
Median school years completed: ~8.3 (estimated from 1940 trend)C
Educational attainment, 1900observed record
median years of school completed, persons 25+
Population measuredVarious national aggregates (depends on table)
Source recordU.S. Census Bureau · 1975 · Tier C
Full record
Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970 (Bicentennial Edition)
U.S. Census Bureau, 1975 · source
Confidence: C — Reconstructed from period surveys
Curator note: Census Table A-1 begins at 1940 (median 8.6 years). The 1900 Census did not collect educational attainment in a comparable form. Estimated by linear backcast from 1940 (8.6) and 1950 (9.3). Tier C: estimate, not directly sourced.
Source note: Free on Internet Archive. Contains population, labor, prices, housing, and diffusion series spanning colonial times to 1970. Essential for pre-1940 decades where no dedicated survey exists. Predecessor to the Millennial Edition.
U.S. Census Bureau, 1975 · source
Confidence: C — Reconstructed from period surveys
Curator note: Census Table A-1 begins at 1940 (median 8.6 years). The 1900 Census did not collect educational attainment in a comparable form. Estimated by linear backcast from 1940 (8.6) and 1950 (9.3). Tier C: estimate, not directly sourced.
Source note: Free on Internet Archive. Contains population, labor, prices, housing, and diffusion series spanning colonial times to 1970. Essential for pre-1940 decades where no dedicated survey exists. Predecessor to the Millennial Edition.
$57 billionD
Nonfarm household net worth, 1900observed record
aggregate net worth of nonfarm household sector, current dollars
Population measuredU.S. nonfarm household sector (aggregate, Goldsmith reconstruction)
Source recordNational Bureau of Economic Research / Princeton University Press · 1963 · Tier D
Full record
Studies in the National Balance Sheet of the United States, Vol. I
National Bureau of Economic Research / Princeton University Press, 1963 · source
Confidence: D — Scholarly estimate
Curator note: From Goldsmith, Lipsey & Mendelson (1963), Table 1, Sector I.1 (Nonfarm households). Total assets: $62B. Tangible assets: $29B (real estate, durables). Financial assets: $32B (deposits, securities, life insurance). Debt: $5B (mostly mortgages). Net worth: $57B. Aggregate — NOT median. Goldsmith reconstructed this from Census wealth data and Federal Reserve sources. In 1900, tangible assets (real estate) were 47% of household assets; financial assets were 53%.
Source note: Table 1: Main Balance Sheet Components by Sector, 1900-1958. Benchmark years: 1900, 1912, 1922, 1929, 1939, 1945, 1958. Sector I.1 = Nonfarm households. Provides total assets, tangible assets, financial assets, debt, and net worth in current dollars. Goldsmith's balance sheet construction uses Census wealth data, Federal Reserve flow of funds, and tax return compilations. Aggregate household sector, NOT median. Tier D (scholarly reconstruction). Downloaded as NBER chapter c3926.
National Bureau of Economic Research / Princeton University Press, 1963 · source
Confidence: D — Scholarly estimate
Curator note: From Goldsmith, Lipsey & Mendelson (1963), Table 1, Sector I.1 (Nonfarm households). Total assets: $62B. Tangible assets: $29B (real estate, durables). Financial assets: $32B (deposits, securities, life insurance). Debt: $5B (mostly mortgages). Net worth: $57B. Aggregate — NOT median. Goldsmith reconstructed this from Census wealth data and Federal Reserve sources. In 1900, tangible assets (real estate) were 47% of household assets; financial assets were 53%.
Source note: Table 1: Main Balance Sheet Components by Sector, 1900-1958. Benchmark years: 1900, 1912, 1922, 1929, 1939, 1945, 1958. Sector I.1 = Nonfarm households. Provides total assets, tangible assets, financial assets, debt, and net worth in current dollars. Goldsmith's balance sheet construction uses Census wealth data, Federal Reserve flow of funds, and tax return compilations. Aggregate household sector, NOT median. Tier D (scholarly reconstruction). Downloaded as NBER chapter c3926.
Tangible 47% ($29B), Financial 53% ($32B)D
Household asset composition, 1900observed record
% of total nonfarm household assets by type
Population measuredU.S. nonfarm household sector (aggregate, Goldsmith reconstruction)
Source recordNational Bureau of Economic Research / Princeton University Press · 1963 · Tier D
Full record
Studies in the National Balance Sheet of the United States, Vol. I
National Bureau of Economic Research / Princeton University Press, 1963 · source
Confidence: D — Scholarly estimate
Curator note: From Goldsmith (1963), Table 1. In 1900, households held roughly equal tangible and financial assets. Tangible = real estate + consumer durables. Financial = deposits + securities + life insurance + pension reserves. By contrast, in 1958 tangible fell to 39% as financial assets grew.
Source note: Table 1: Main Balance Sheet Components by Sector, 1900-1958. Benchmark years: 1900, 1912, 1922, 1929, 1939, 1945, 1958. Sector I.1 = Nonfarm households. Provides total assets, tangible assets, financial assets, debt, and net worth in current dollars. Goldsmith's balance sheet construction uses Census wealth data, Federal Reserve flow of funds, and tax return compilations. Aggregate household sector, NOT median. Tier D (scholarly reconstruction). Downloaded as NBER chapter c3926.
National Bureau of Economic Research / Princeton University Press, 1963 · source
Confidence: D — Scholarly estimate
Curator note: From Goldsmith (1963), Table 1. In 1900, households held roughly equal tangible and financial assets. Tangible = real estate + consumer durables. Financial = deposits + securities + life insurance + pension reserves. By contrast, in 1958 tangible fell to 39% as financial assets grew.
Source note: Table 1: Main Balance Sheet Components by Sector, 1900-1958. Benchmark years: 1900, 1912, 1922, 1929, 1939, 1945, 1958. Sector I.1 = Nonfarm households. Provides total assets, tangible assets, financial assets, debt, and net worth in current dollars. Goldsmith's balance sheet construction uses Census wealth data, Federal Reserve flow of funds, and tax return compilations. Aggregate household sector, NOT median. Tier D (scholarly reconstruction). Downloaded as NBER chapter c3926.
What had arrived
1 observations · 0 gapsTelephone: 9.2 per 1,000 population (1898), ~5% of households. Automobile: <1% (registration incomplete pre-1910). Electricity: <5% of homes (urban only). Radio: not yet commercial.A
Technology diffusion: telephone, automobile, electricity (~1900)observed record
per 1,000 population or % of households
Population measuredVarious national aggregates (depends on table)
Source recordU.S. Census Bureau · 1975 · Tier A
Full record
Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970 (Bicentennial Edition)
U.S. Census Bureau, 1975 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From Historical Statistics Vol 2, Series R 1-2 (p.192, OCR'd via GLM-OCR): 1898 had 681,000 telephones = 9.2 per 1,000 population. With avg family size 5.31, this translates to roughly 5% of households. The report notes motor-vehicle registration data for early years is 'incomplete, largely because few States required their registration' (p.113). By 1907, telephone penetration reached ~7% of households. Electricity diffusion was limited to urban areas; rural electrification didn't begin until the 1930s. Radio broadcasting began ~1920.
Source note: Free on Internet Archive. Contains population, labor, prices, housing, and diffusion series spanning colonial times to 1970. Essential for pre-1940 decades where no dedicated survey exists. Predecessor to the Millennial Edition.
Assumption: The composite family
Assumption: Urban/rural splits
U.S. Census Bureau, 1975 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: From Historical Statistics Vol 2, Series R 1-2 (p.192, OCR'd via GLM-OCR): 1898 had 681,000 telephones = 9.2 per 1,000 population. With avg family size 5.31, this translates to roughly 5% of households. The report notes motor-vehicle registration data for early years is 'incomplete, largely because few States required their registration' (p.113). By 1907, telephone penetration reached ~7% of households. Electricity diffusion was limited to urban areas; rural electrification didn't begin until the 1930s. Radio broadcasting began ~1920.
Source note: Free on Internet Archive. Contains population, labor, prices, housing, and diffusion series spanning colonial times to 1970. Essential for pre-1940 decades where no dedicated survey exists. Predecessor to the Millennial Edition.
Assumption: The composite family
Assumption: Urban/rural splits
A day's work buys
3 observations · 0 gaps$12.74/week (manufacturing) = 1.66% of $768.54 annual expenditure → about 60 weeks of one worker's wagesA
What a week of work bought, 1900observed record
ratio of weekly wages to annual expenditure
Population measuredVarious national aggregates (depends on table)
Source recordU.S. Census Bureau · 1975 · Tier A
Full record
Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970 (Bicentennial Edition)
U.S. Census Bureau, 1975 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: Hourly earnings $0.216 × 59.0 hours gives $12.74 weekly manufacturing earnings (Historical Statistics Series D 765-766). Annual expenditure $768.54 is from the 18th Annual Report (Bulletin No. 49, p.1138), a separate survey population. Their ratio is an illustration, not a reconstruction of how a particular family financed its budget; it does not establish the number of earners.
Source note: Free on Internet Archive. Contains population, labor, prices, housing, and diffusion series spanning colonial times to 1970. Essential for pre-1940 decades where no dedicated survey exists. Predecessor to the Millennial Edition.
Assumption: The composite family
Assumption: Values are shown in period money
U.S. Census Bureau, 1975 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: Hourly earnings $0.216 × 59.0 hours gives $12.74 weekly manufacturing earnings (Historical Statistics Series D 765-766). Annual expenditure $768.54 is from the 18th Annual Report (Bulletin No. 49, p.1138), a separate survey population. Their ratio is an illustration, not a reconstruction of how a particular family financed its budget; it does not establish the number of earners.
Source note: Free on Internet Archive. Contains population, labor, prices, housing, and diffusion series spanning colonial times to 1970. Essential for pre-1940 decades where no dedicated survey exists. Predecessor to the Millennial Edition.
Assumption: The composite family
Assumption: Values are shown in period money
$58.65 surplus ($827.19 income - $768.54 expenditure)A
Income vs expenditure surplus, 1901observed record
USD per year, nominal
Population measured2,567 wage-earner families in 33 states, head earning <=$1,200/year, year 1901
Source recordU.S. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Labor · 1903 · Tier A
Full record
BLS Bulletin No. 49: Cost of Living and Retail Prices of Food (18th Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor)
U.S. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Labor, 1903 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: Computed from primary source: average income ($827.19) minus average expenditure ($768.54) = $58.65. Families saved about 7% of income on average. This is a thin margin — sickness or unemployment could quickly push a family into deficit.
Source note: Primary source for 1900s room. Average income $827.19, average expenditure $768.54, food $326.90 (42.54%). Rent 12.95%, clothing 14.04%, fuel and light 5.25%. Average family size 5.31. NOTE: the University of Missouri guide cited average income as $749 — the primary source says $827.19. The $749 figure is WRONG; this is the correct figure from the report itself. File: bls_v08_0049_1903.pdf (268 pages, text-extractable via pdftotext).
Assumption: The composite family
Assumption: Values are shown in period money
U.S. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Labor, 1903 · source
Confidence: A — Official series
Curator note: Computed from primary source: average income ($827.19) minus average expenditure ($768.54) = $58.65. Families saved about 7% of income on average. This is a thin margin — sickness or unemployment could quickly push a family into deficit.
Source note: Primary source for 1900s room. Average income $827.19, average expenditure $768.54, food $326.90 (42.54%). Rent 12.95%, clothing 14.04%, fuel and light 5.25%. Average family size 5.31. NOTE: the University of Missouri guide cited average income as $749 — the primary source says $827.19. The $749 figure is WRONG; this is the correct figure from the report itself. File: bls_v08_0049_1903.pdf (268 pages, text-extractable via pdftotext).
Assumption: The composite family
Assumption: Values are shown in period money
$650 (Oldsmobile Curved Dash, best-selling) to $750 (Ford Model A)C
New automobile price, 1901–1904observed record
USD, nominal (manufacturer list price)
Population measuredManufacturer list prices for the US market
Source recordManufacturer records compiled by automotive historians · 2008 · Tier C
Full record
Early American Automobile Manufacturer Prices (1901–1910)
Manufacturer records compiled by automotive historians, 2008 · source
Confidence: C — Reconstructed from period surveys
Basis: One-time price
Affordability anchors: Production workers in manufacturing (national average, payroll data); 2,567 wage-earner families in 33 states, head earning <=$1,200/year, year 1901
Denominators measure: hours axis: average hourly earnings; income axis: family income (period cost-of-living survey)
Curator note: The Oldsmobile Curved Dash Runabout was $650 from 1901–1904 and was the best-selling car in America (425 sold 1901, 2,500 in 1902, 3,924 in 1903). The Ford Model A (first Ford, 1903) was $750–$850. The Rambler was also $650. These are manufacturer list prices from primary company records, compiled by automotive historians. The previous Tier D figure ($750–$1,500 from Frank Leslie's Popular Monthly) is consistent but less precise. A $650 car = 51 weeks of manufacturing wages ($12.74/week) = ~80% of annual family income ($827.19).
Source note: Oldsmobile Curved Dash Runabout: $650 (1901–1904), best-selling car in America. Ford Model A (first Ford): $750–$850 (1903). Rambler: $650 (1902–1913). Prices from manufacturer records compiled by ConceptCarz, RM Sotheby's, and PreWarCar. Tier C: manufacturer list prices verified through multiple automotive history sources. URL CORRECTION 2026-08-14: the old /vehicle/v31303,10036/ deep link now redirects to an error page with HTTP 200 (caught by the redirect advisory); repointed at the same car's live model page, content re-verified (1902 Model R Curved Dash valuation/specs).
Assumption: Values are shown in period money
Manufacturer records compiled by automotive historians, 2008 · source
Confidence: C — Reconstructed from period surveys
Basis: One-time price
Affordability anchors: Production workers in manufacturing (national average, payroll data); 2,567 wage-earner families in 33 states, head earning <=$1,200/year, year 1901
Denominators measure: hours axis: average hourly earnings; income axis: family income (period cost-of-living survey)
Curator note: The Oldsmobile Curved Dash Runabout was $650 from 1901–1904 and was the best-selling car in America (425 sold 1901, 2,500 in 1902, 3,924 in 1903). The Ford Model A (first Ford, 1903) was $750–$850. The Rambler was also $650. These are manufacturer list prices from primary company records, compiled by automotive historians. The previous Tier D figure ($750–$1,500 from Frank Leslie's Popular Monthly) is consistent but less precise. A $650 car = 51 weeks of manufacturing wages ($12.74/week) = ~80% of annual family income ($827.19).
Source note: Oldsmobile Curved Dash Runabout: $650 (1901–1904), best-selling car in America. Ford Model A (first Ford): $750–$850 (1903). Rambler: $650 (1902–1913). Prices from manufacturer records compiled by ConceptCarz, RM Sotheby's, and PreWarCar. Tier C: manufacturer list prices verified through multiple automotive history sources. URL CORRECTION 2026-08-14: the old /vehicle/v31303,10036/ deep link now redirects to an error page with HTTP 200 (caught by the redirect advisory); repointed at the same car's live model page, content re-verified (1902 Model R Curved Dash valuation/specs).
Assumption: Values are shown in period money
Computed affordability
≈ 2,600 hours of work
≈ 78.6% of annual income
Large ratio: inspect the wage population and anchor years in provenance before reading this as one household's timeline.
Confidence & flags
A — official statistical series
B — official microdata, computed by this project
C — reconstructed from period surveys
D — scholarly estimate
Gap — no reliable record; shown as the gap it is
Reading the atlas
Provenance is in the scan-line: every exhibit's row names its value, confidence tier, the population actually measured, and the source record. Chart points and stage glyphs open the same record.
Rising series draw in petrol, falling in ember. An omitted illustration means no exhibit was selected, not that the object was historically absent.