If you think in terms of a year, plant a seed; if in
terms of ten years, plant trees; if in terms of 150 years, teach the people. ~ Confucius.
Fasten your seat belts as I
time-travel in Doc Brown‘s DeLorean to England and the
United States in 1861 to see what was happening during the Industrial
Revolution and beyond. After that trip I return to 2011 and confirm the considerable progress we have made
in the intervening 150 years in these two countries.
As expected, many aspects of
life were quite different in 1861.[1]
The United States consisted of 34 states 155 years ago; Kansas joined the
nation on January 29, 1861. On Feb 8, 1861 the Confederate States of America
was formed, comprising the first six break-away States in the Deep South. On
Mar 4, President Abraham Lincoln took office, succeeding James Buchanan. Across
the pond, Victoria had been queen of the United Kingdom for 24 years, and would
rule for another 40 years, until 1901. On Apr 1, the American Civil War broke
out, leading to the Lancashire Cotton Panic in England. Lancashire was a major
English textile center, particularly cotton textiles, during the Industrial
Revolution.
I first look at England in
more detail, using the 8 varied characteristics presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Comparing 1861 and 2011 in ol’ Engla-lond*
Characteristic
|
1861
|
2011
|
Population of England /
London (in millions)
|
20.281 / 2.803
|
53.01 / 8.17
|
Average value of a home
(1861 states annual rent)
|
£2.17
|
£218,000
|
Value of currency
|
1 pound (£)
|
£612.00
|
Average daily income
|
£0.14 - 10hr day
|
£120.72 – 8.3hr day
|
Mean temperature (Greenwich-London) for
January/August (degrees F)
|
34.2F / 64.7F
|
42.6F / 65.5F
|
Average lifespan at birth
(men/women)
|
39 / 41 years
|
81 years (men and women)
|
Infant mortality rate (%
per 1000 live births)
|
72.02%
|
0.43%
|
Average height of men
|
65.46 in.
|
69.06 in.
|
* Engla-lond was first noted as the name of
what’s now called England in the late 800’s.
I am comparing the two years
shown in Table 1 because the British decennial censuses of the general
population started in 1801. The US decennial censuses, required under Article I,
Sec. 2 of the Constitution, began in 1790. Thus, I will compare 1860 with 2010 for
the US.
The population of England has
grown over 260% in the 150 years ending in 2011. Victorian London was the
world’s largest city in 1861; its population has grown almost 300% since then. London
is now the 20th largest city in the world, with 8.54 million (M) people. The current
population of the United Kingdom is 64.6M.
The British census in 1861
revealed that husbands in England amounted to
3,428,443. There were 3,488,952 wives; 1,168 of these wives were 15-19 years
old, 1 was 90 or older. Of the husbands, 30 were between 15-19 years old, 1 was
90 or older. In the 10 years 1851-1860, 6,048,479 children were born in wedlock
by 2,757,705 wives of the age of 15 and under 55. Unmarried women bore 423,171
children (about 13% of total births) during the same 10-year period. You can
see from this table that an astonishing 72.02% of infants in 1861 England died
between 0 and 4 years. This was a major reason that Englishwomen in 1861 on average had 5.5 to more than 6
children, depending on the reference source. Think for a moment about these 2
statistics; they mean that a “typical” Victorian mother (and in this case, it’s
not one who lived anywhere near the Downton Abbeys of England), who bore 6
children, at most only 2 of her kids
survived past age 4. Due to significant improvements in public health (e.g., installing
public sewers and water systems, enhanced food safety and enriched medical
knowledge and practice), British infant mortality was cut by over 150 times to
0.43% by 2011.
Other demographic
characteristics of Victorian England include expected lifespans (at birth) of
39 years for men and 41 years for women. If someone born in England from
1861-70 survived until age 10, their average expected lifetime was 64 years (men) and 60 years (women), again
illustrating that a child’s first years were perilous. During the 150 years
from 1861 to 2011 average lifespans in England doubled to 81 years, due to
factors mentioned above. Table 1 also shows that the average height of men
increased more than 3.5 inches. Despite being a bit taller, I doubt British men
can see Russia from the cliffs of Dover.
The monthly mean temperatures
for January and August collected at the Royal Greenwich Observatory (RGO) show
that it was over 8 degrees colder in January 1861 than in 2011. Brrrr. The RGO’s
description of 1861 weather states it was dry year, with the mean temperature
close to average. January was a notably cold month (5.6F below the 1971/2000
average) while October was warm (3.8F above average). The mean temperatures for
August 1861 and 2011 are virtually identical. Meteorological data began to be
collected at RGO in 1859. Beyond temperatures, since the late 19th century the RGO
is the historic source of the Prime Meridian of the world, Longitude 0° 0' 0''.
The world prime meridian marks the divide between the eastern and western
hemispheres and runs right through the observatory.
Next, I present several
economic characteristics of 19th and 21st century England including the value of the
currency and average income. One British pound sterling (£) in 1861 is now
worth £612.00, meaning that English general prices have risen 612 times during
the past 150 years; about 4% per year. In 1861 an unskilled laborer’s daily
wage was £0.14 (or 24 pence; at that time there were 240 pence per pound).
Ten-hour days, six days a week was the standard. This daily wage corresponds to
£42.84 per year. £0.14 is equivalent today to £90.30 (or $127.63). Annual wages
in England and Wales in 1861 for other workers varies considerably: agricultural
(ag) workers, £36.04; teachers, £93.76; barristers and solicitors (lawyers),
£1600 and the highest listed income. Like the US in 1860, ag workers were the
single largest component of England’s labor force. In the US 58% of all
laborers were agricultural workers in 1860. England’s ag workforce was at least
as prominent a share of its labor force because US agriculture was becoming
mechanized more rapidly than in England. For some chronological perspective,
the 2011 per capita British
income was £28,128 per year, or £120.72 per workday – for an average 8.3 hour
day. This is equivalent to $175.08/day. The 2011 average daily wage represents
a 41% gain from 1861’s average daily wage in real terms. A 41% increase in real
daily salary over 150 years is not at all impressive.
Finally, in 1861 you could
rent a home in England for £2.17 annually. By 2011 you could buy of an average
British home for £218,000 ($320,500), nearly 100,000 times more than the 1861
rent. Wow!
I now head west around the
globe to the United States. I examine the same statistics for the US in Table 2
that are presented for England in Table 1.
Table 2: Comparing 1860 and 2010 in the United States
Characteristic
|
1860
|
2010
|
Population of the US / New
York City (in millions)
|
31.44 / 0.814
|
308.7 / 8.18
|
Average value of a home (New York City /
Philadelphia)+ 2010 US Median Home Value
|
$5,631 / $2,540
|
$812,300 / $142,500 $179,900
|
Value of currency
|
1 dollar ($)
|
$24.28
|
Average daily income
|
$0.98 - 10hr day
|
$135.46 – 9.3hr day
|
Mean temperature (Philadelphia) for January/August
(degrees F)
|
33.5F / 75F*
|
33.2F / 79.0F
|
Average lifespan at birth
(men and women)
|
42 years
|
78.7 years
|
Infant mortality rate (%
per 1000 live births)
|
41.4%
|
0.61%
|
Average height of men
|
66 in.
|
69.7 in.
|
+ Unlike the 2010 US Census, the 1860 Census
has no national average value for homes, only for New York City and
Philadelphia.
* These temperatures are from
1846, courtesy
of Charles Pierce.
The US population in 1860 was
31,443,321, an increase of 35.4% over the 23,191,875 persons enumerated in the
1850 Census. This was the first census where the American Indians officially
were counted, but only those who had “renounced tribal rules.” The figure for American
Indians living in the US was a suspiciously-round 40,000.
New York City’s population,
the largest city in the nation in 1860 (and 2010), was 813,669. Philadelphia
was 2nd with 565,528 and San Francisco was 15th largest with 56,802 folks. The
US’s fecundity was on display by 1860, when the US population was already 55%
larger than England’s. This is reflected in the 1860 US fertility rate of 7.6
children per woman. By 2015 the US and UK fertility
rates tumbled to 1.87 and 1.89 children, respectively. By 2010 the US
population had increased almost 10 times to 308,745,538. New York City’s
population in 2010 was 8,175,133, more than 10 times as large as in 1860. Currently,
New York City is the world’s 21st largest city with a population of 8.491M. The
current US population is 322.951M (ranked 3rd, behind China
and India).
The US infant mortality rate
was a frightfully lofty 41.4% in 1860, although this rate was about 30% lower
than the 1861 English rate mentioned above. It meant that less than 5 of the
almost 8 children born of an “average” mother survived past early childhood. Interestingly,
in 1960 the US infant mortality rate was 2.6%, according to World Bank data;
the UK rate in 1960 was 2.3%. As in England, by 2010 the US infant mortality
rate shrank dramatically – a 99% reduction – to 0.61% as public health vastly
improved; and improved over 4 times in just the past 50 years. However, this
improvement seems to have stalled, perhaps due to our high pre-term birth rate;
in 2015 the US infant mortality rate was 0.59% (57th lowest rate in the world).
Average US lifespan at birth
for men and women improved almost 90% between 1860 and 2010, from 42 years to
almost 79 years. As in England, the average height of men did increase in the
US – almost 4 inches (about 6%) – during the 150 year timespan, to 69.7 inches
in 2010. Englishmen and their American counterparts, on average, are as tall as
each other. I guess the bangers and mash and BigMacs may cancel each other out
rather nicely.
As shown in Table 2, the mean
January and August temperatures in Philadelphia in 1846 were not that different
than those measured in 2010. These historical weather statistics were
studiously gathered each month by Mr. Charles Pierce, who published them in his
detailed journal, “A meteorological account of the weather in Philadelphia,
from January 1, 1790, to January 1, 1847, including fifty-seven years; with an
Appendix.” I could not find a source for temperatures anywhere in the US for
1860. Mr. Pierce mentions that Aug 1846 “was a month of great humidity.” Having
grown up in Philadelphia, I can fully attest to the all too impressive (and
oppressive) summer humidity in the City of Brotherly Love.
The mean January temperatures
in Philadelphia – 164 years apart – are within one-half of a degree F of each
other, just above freezing. The August 1846 temp was but 4 degrees lower than
the 2010 Aug temp (79F). This set of similar mean temperatures over a long
period of time can’t be used as evidence for climate-change deniers, but it
does create a bit of ambiguity.
Now I characterize the US
economic setting in 1860 and 2010. As shown in Table 2, one dollar in 1860 was worth
$24.28 in 2010 (and $26.34 in 2015). This change in our currency value is far less than the implied inflation than
occurred in England during the same 150 year period. Daily income for a laborer
in 1860 was $0.98 when he worked 10 hours a day 6 days a week, as in England.
By 2010 US laborers received on average $135.46 on a daily basis, when they worked
9.3 hour days over 5 days a week. Other professions received more pay in 1860,
as they do now. Blacksmiths earned $1.78 per day, machinists earned $1.58/day
and carpenters received $1.82/day the highest-income of workers in 1860 that I
found wage data for. According to the Dept. of Labor, in 2014 machinists
received $159.76 per day; carpenters earned $157.04/day, and construction
laborers earned $136.80/day. In 2014 the average work-day for American
employees was 9.3 hours, among the highest in advanced Western democracies.
That is one hour more per day than English workers. By comparing the increase
in average daily income between 1860 and 2014 (larger by at least a multiple of
85x) with the multiple of the dollar’s value (24x), we can conclude over the
past 150 years labor income has increased greatly, in real (inflation-adjusted)
terms.
As expected, the average
value of homes since 1860 has risen significantly. The 1860 Census contained total
value of real estate in both New York City and Philadelphia. After trawling
through other sections of this census (It’s 551 pages long, and ends with a
table of oyster production - $1.41M worth of oysters – together with employment
and capital investment by state in oyster fisheries.), I found the number of
dwellings in both cities as well. Thus Table 2 shows the average 1860 dwelling
value for the 2 largest cities in the US; $5,631 in New York City (NYC) and
$2,540 in Philadelphia, that was less than half the value of homes in NYC. The
2010 average values for a home in these cities are $812,300 and $142,500 in NYC
in Philadelphia respectively. New York City homes’ value increased 6 times,
after adjusting for inflation; Philadelphia’s homes rose more than 2.5 times in
real terms. The 2010 average home value in the US was $179,900; in Alameda
County CA, where I reside, was $484,200. Although significant, this increase in
US real home value hardly offers an 1860 home-owner a noteworthy return over
the past 150 years, due in large part by the volatility of home prices
throughout our history.
So my demographic, meteorological
and economic comparisons across 150 years of English and American history has documented
we are far healthier and economically better off, as expected. Surprisingly,
the weather for these 2 places and points in time isn’t that much different.
No comments:
Post a Comment