The 100-Year March of Technology in 1 Graph

The Atlantic

In 1900, less than 10% of families owned a stove, or had access to electricity or phones, and the Model-T was still a full decade away

View gallery

.
Screen Shot 2012-04-07 at 1.03.40 PM.png
This is the last episode in The Atlantic's trilogy on household spending in the 20th century. First, I followed shifting family budgets between 1900 and 2003. Second, I explained why food seems so much cheaper at the dawn of the 21st century. Those two posts were all about numbers.


But you can't measure a century's progress by numbers alone.

It's not just that life expectancy at birth has grown from 49 years in 1900 to 78 today, but also the quality of our lives has been improved by law (e.g.: new safety and anti-discrimination laws), by culture (e.g.: women's ascent in college and the workplace) and by technology.

That's why this graph below, showing the adoption rate of new technologies across the century, is one of my new favorites (and a cousin to this graph, which Alexis made viral):

View gallery

.
technology adoption rate century.png
Take your time. That's a lot of linear data. One way to parse it is to ignore everything at the top and trace your eye along the 10% line:

-- In 1900,
-- In 1915,
-- In 1930,
-- In 1945,
-- In 1960,
-- In 1975,
-- In 1990,
Today, at least 90% of the country has a stove, electricity, car, fridge, clothes washer, air-conditioning, color TV, microwave, and cell phone. And all sorts of other stuff.

The Money Report 2012 bug
Exploring the cost of everything See full coverage

There is a strain of conservatism that suggests that the march of technology has made life so good for people at the bottom that we don't have to worry much about income inequality. Tens of millions of Americans are living in poverty, "but it's okay, because they have more microwaves than ever before," is an argument that exists, and is widely persuasive. It's accurate to say today's poor have more stuff that yesterday's poor wouldn't recognize. But the ubiquity of microwaves doesn't displace the moral obligation of the richest country in the history of the world to protect people who literally can't afford food to put in that microwave. Medical bankruptcy is hardly alleviated by the falling price of flat screen televisions.

One hundred ago, what is now the modern world was considerably more vulnerable to agricultural crisis. After poor seasons of weather, thousands would starve. It was a tragedy. But this tragedy occurred in the context of what were then amazing new technologies. As Bill Bryson wrote in At Home, the world had never been more brilliantly lit by gas or more reliably cleaned by plumbing. Nobody today would say that gas lamps and plumbing technologies obviate the need for welfare. And yet, some people today say microwaves and TVs have finally relieved us of the burden of worrying about the poor. If the position isn't simply wrong, it is at the very least historically myopic.




More From The Atlantic
View Comments (0)