Washstands

A century ago, many American bedrooms still contained a washstand — a piece of furniture designed to hold a water pitcher, washbasin, towels, and other grooming supplies. The washstand itself was the cabinet or table, while the basin was the bowl used for washing. For generations, these pieces were standard fixtures in American bedrooms, and they remained a familiar sight in many homes during the mid-1920s, even as indoor plumbing gradually became more common in cities and newer homes.

The transition to fully plumbed homes was slow and uneven. In 1940 — the earliest year for which comprehensive census data is available — only 55% of American homes had “complete plumbing facilities,” defined as hot and cold running water, a bathtub or shower, and a flush toilet. The figure would have been even lower in the mid-1920s. As a result, washstands continued to serve a practical purpose in older homes and rural households. Even in some homes with indoor plumbing, they remained in use out of habit or convenience, especially when a single bathroom served an entire family.

Tiny Closets 

One of the biggest differences in the bedrooms of a century ago was the lack of closet space. Built-in closets had become increasingly common in American homes by the early 20th century, but they were usually small by modern standards, and many older houses had none at all. The spacious walk-in closet, now considered a staple of many primary bedrooms, did not become a common feature of American home design until the late 20th century. Without much built-in storage, more of the bedroom’s floor space was devoted to freestanding furniture.

Large dressers and chests of drawers were used to store folded clothing, while wardrobes and armoires provided space for garments that needed hanging. Trunks and cedar chests held seasonal items, extra blankets, and clothing for special occasions. Americans generally owned fewer clothes than they do today, and garments were expected to be worn for years, repaired when necessary, stored between seasons, and saved to be passed down to younger siblings or other family members.

Separate Beds

Separate beds for married couples had been promoted since the late 19th century, but the arrangement reached the height of its popularity during the 1920s and 1930s. Furniture manufacturers, doctors, and home design magazines often praised twin beds as cleaner, healthier, and more practical than a shared mattress. Sleeping apart was said to improve sleep, reduce disturbances from a restless partner, and even limit the spread of colds and other illnesses within the household.

Not every family embraced the idea, and many working-class couples continued sharing a bed simply because buying two was impractical or unnecessary. But among middle-class Americans, twin beds became common enough to define the look of many bedrooms for decades. The arrangement remained widely accepted through the 1940s and 1950s, but larger shared beds gradually regained popularity in the postwar years and eventually became the norm in American homes once again.

Matching Furniture

Walk into a typical American bedroom in the 1920s, and one of the first things you’d notice was how closely the furniture matched. Rather than assembling a room piece by piece, many families aspired to own a coordinated bedroom suite of several matching pieces, including a bed, dresser, and chest of drawers. Furniture manufacturers had been heavily promoting these matching sets since the 1880s, and by the mid-1920s furniture companies were offering dozens of different bedroom suite designs to consumers.

Not every family could afford a complete suite, especially in rural areas or working-class households, but the trend was widespread enough to shape bedroom design across the country. At the same time, furniture styles were evolving. The dark, heavily carved pieces that had dominated many late-19th-century homes were gradually giving way to lighter designs, decorative veneers, mirrored vanities, and furniture influenced by fashionable styles such as art deco.

Vanities 

Vanity tables, or dressing tables, had long been used in some form in households dating back centuries, particularly in wealthier homes where dedicated spaces for grooming were common. By the 1920s, however, the bedroom vanity had become a familiar feature in many middle-class American homes, too, as furniture manufacturers began producing them more widely and including them in coordinated bedroom suites. Typically consisting of a small table or desk with an attached mirror and matching bench or stool, the vanity provided a dedicated space for grooming and dressing.

The popularity of vanities also reflected broader cultural changes during the decade. The 1920s saw booming sales of cosmetics, perfumes, and other beauty products, as more women spent time in public life and were increasingly expected to maintain a polished appearance. New beauty standards — such as shorter hairstyles and more involved grooming routines — also made daily upkeep more routine and visible than in earlier decades. 

While not every household could afford a dedicated dressing table, particularly in rural and working-class homes, the vanity became a common feature in many urban and middle-class bedrooms, and its popularity only began to decline in the mid-20th century as home design evolved and built-in bathroom storage became more common.

Middle-Class Math

According to U.S. Census Bureau data, middle-class homes in 2024 earned between $55,820 and $167,460 a year. Unsurprisingly, the earnings of middle-class Americans in 1900 were considerably lower due to inflation. A lawyer or architect could expect to earn around $1,200 a year, a banker or broker $1,600 a year, and a surgeon $1,625 a year (that’s about $47,000, $63,000, and $64,000 respectively in today's money). In comparison, the average farm worker, industrial worker, brewer, or tanner earned somewhere between $300 and $500 annually ($12,000 and $20,000 today). 

These middle-class salaries, while modest by modern standards, went considerably further in 1900. Sugar cost about 5 cents a pound (equivalent to about $2 today), a dozen eggs 19 cents ($7.50 today), coffee 22 cents a pound ($8.80 today), and a loaf of bread about 4 cents (about $1.60 today). A comfortable family home in a midsize American city could be purchased or rented at a fraction of what a middle-class salary could support today. 

Degrees Were Rare

Today, a college-level education is considered common among the American middle class, and a bachelor’s degree is standard for many professional careers. But back in 1900, the educational landscape was different. Around 78% of all American children between ages 5 and 17 were enrolled in schools, but the average child was in school for no more than eight years. In 1900, a high school diploma or college degree was a rare privilege — fewer than 10% of Americans graduated high school and only 1 in 50 graduated college. 

A middle-class worker in 1900 tended to be better educated than a typical working-class laborer, and middle-class families were more likely to invest heavily in their children’s schooling. 

Running the Middle-Class Home

The middle-class household of 1900 was organized around a clear division of labor, with men earning the bulk of the income and women managing the home. This arrangement reflected the cultural norms of the time — which included the notion that a man’s success could be measured by his ability to keep his wife out of the workforce entirely, and that a working wife was to be frowned upon. It wasn’t until the 1940s, when World War II shifted views about women in the workplace, that the idea of a middle-class married woman going to work became more socially acceptable. 

Within the home, however, both working-class and middle-class women often exercised real authority. They managed household budgets, directed domestic servants (if they had any), oversaw their children’s education, and were considered the moral and emotional center of the family. And in 1900, middle-class homemakers had a new challenge to face: technology. This period saw the emergence of gas and electric appliances, running water, prepared foods, ready-made clothes, and factory-made furniture, all of which brought about major changes in how homes were managed.  

The Rise of Consumer Culture

One clear marker of middle-class life in 1900 was access to leisure. Amusement parks, vaudeville theaters, stadium sports, and the very first movie houses were becoming fixtures of urban middle-class entertainment. These places also catered to the working class, but the growing middle class had more disposable income and, in many cases, more free time. Music, too, was finding its way into the more affluent households. Pianos became affordable to many middle-class families, as did new phonographs. 

The emergence of the middle class also ushered in new forms of consumerism. Department stores, which had proliferated through the 1870s and 1880s, specifically targeted middle- and upper-class shoppers with a new kind of consumer experience designed to appeal to buyers who prized respectability, had money to spend on impulse, and had time to go shopping as a leisure activity. 

Talking Pictures

The 1927 film The Jazz Singer is known as the first film to introduce the sound of spoken dialogue to motion pictures — albeit only in a short passage. In 1928, The Lights of New York became the first feature-length film to include sound for all its dialogue. It was billed at the time as an “all talking picture,” and cemented Hollywood’s shift away from silent films to “talkies.” 

Clara Bow became one of the biggest stars of 1920s cinema after starring in the 1927 silent film It, which was so popular, the term “it girl” entered the lexicon. She also starred in 1927’s Wings, which won the first Academy Award for Best Picture. This photo is a production still from her first foray into talking pictures in The Wild Party. The image captures Bow’s flapper sass as she reacts to her co-star (and cousin) William Bow’s singing. While the transition to talking films infamously ended the careers of many silent-era stars, Clara Bow was able to persist into the talking era, though her rigorous schedule and the persistent celebrity gossip around the star led to her retirement from film by 1933.                                                                                                                                                

The Charleston

The Charleston gained popularity in the 1923 Broadway show Runnin’ Wild, a revue of Black music written by composers James P. Johnson and Cecil Mack. The dance became such a phenomenon that it’s nearly synonymous with the Roaring ’20s, and it spurred a dance competition fad that often took the form of dance marathons. While it’s unclear if this photo depicts a marathon, the dancers here are participating in some form of Charleston dance contest.

Speakeasies

The hidden bars of the 1920s, known as “speakeasies,” were an unintended consequence of Prohibition, as the illicit businesses served a demand for alcohol that couldn’t be legislated away. By the end of the 1920s, New York City Police Commissioner Grover Whalen claimed there were 32,000 speakeasies operating in that city alone. 

In this photo, we see a group entering a Washington, D.C., speakeasy, the Krazy Kat Klub, which was opened by artist Cleon Throckmorton and located on the second floor of a stable. At far right, wearing a hat, is Throckmorton himself. At far left is his wife, Kathrine Mullen (also spelled Kathryn Mullin), glancing at the camera.

The Jazz Age

The energetic, improvised hot jazz that emerged in New Orleans during the 1920s quickly spread to New York and Chicago, as artists such as Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, King Oliver, and Jelly Roll Morton developed the genre to such a point of popularity that another nickname for the 1920s is the “Jazz Age.” The wild abandon of jazz matched the zeitgeist of the time, and this photo of the St. Louis Cotton Club Band provides a visual expression. Note the difference in instrumentation from later eras of jazz: The tuba and banjo at the far left were later replaced by double bass and guitar, respectively. 

The Assembly Line

In 1913, industrialist Henry Ford’s moving assembly line — a refinement of the stationary assembly line pioneered by automotive pioneer Ransom Olds — enabled larger-scale production of automobiles, and by the 1920s, approximately 8 million Americans owned a car. By the end of the 1920s, that number had spiked to 23 million. In this photo, we see an assembly line at Ford’s Dearborn, Michigan plant, circa 1928. The workers are manufacturing the new Model A, Ford’s replacement for the Model T it had been selling for nearly 20 years. 

The Classroom

Whether rural or urban, classrooms in the 1920s shared a defining feature: They were crowded, multipurpose spaces. In both rural and urban settings, individualized learning wasn’t at all common. Instead, teachers had to manage a collective group with limited time, materials, and attention. Segregation was also a reality of American education in this era, with many schools, particularly in the South, still separated by race, creating deeply unequal learning conditions in school.

In rural areas, the typical one-room schoolhouse brought together children of all ages in a single space, where one teacher taught every subject — reading, arithmetic, geography, history — across as many as eight grade levels at once. Students were grouped by ability rather than age, and older children often helped younger ones to keep the classroom functioning day to day.

In cities, classrooms could hold dozens of students, who were sometimes split into half-day shifts to accommodate overcrowding in rapidly growing neighborhoods. Multistory school buildings were becoming more common, shaped by Progressive era reforms, and students were separated by grade level. 

The Curriculum

While modern education often emphasizes interpretation and critical thinking, the 1920s leaned heavily on memorization and recitation. Students were expected to master arithmetic tables, spelling lists, historical dates, and literary passages by heart, often repeating them aloud until they could be delivered on demand. Standing at the front of the room to recite a lesson was a regular ritual, and clear, confident elocution was an important component in determining success.

Instruction was based on a limited number of textbooks that were reused year after year. Copying passages by hand, drilling lessons repeatedly, and memorizing large blocks of information were central to how knowledge was acquired. At the same time, education carried a strong moral and civic layer, with readers and textbooks emphasizing character, obedience, patriotism, and work ethic — influencing not only what children learned but also how they were expected to behave in the world.

Discipline

Classroom discipline in the 1920s was generally strict, immediate, and rarely questioned. There was little uncertainty about what was expected, and behaviors such as talking out of turn or incomplete work were met with swift consequences that could include standing in corners, writing lines, or, in some cases, corporal punishment that would be considered severe by today’s standards.

The rules were rigid and consistently enforced, a reflection of the pressure placed on teachers to maintain order. Order was a foundational principle of schooling itself, shaping the structure of daily life in the classroom. Individualism and independence were not considered traits to be cultivated in the modern sense. Instead, obedience, cooperation, and conformity within the group were expected. 

Lunch and Recess

Lunch in the 1920s was simple across both rural and urban settings. Typically carried from home in tin pails or wrapped in cloth, meals might have included sandwiches, fruit, biscuits, or leftovers from the night before, as cafeterias were rare and refrigeration was limited or nonexistent. The idea of school-provided meals had only just emerged at the end of the 19th century.

Recess, when offered, was brief and largely unstructured, and children played outside in all weather conditions. Games were invented on the spot, shaped by whatever space or materials were available, and physical activity was woven into daily life rather than organized as a formal subject. In cities, health education began to take hold through public campaigns promoting hygiene and disease prevention, reflecting broader Progressive era efforts to improve child welfare.

Then and Now

The differences between school in the 1920s and school today are significant across nearly every dimension, from structure to curriculum, discipline, and daily experience. Education was shaped by local necessity, economic pressure, and limited resources rather than national standardization or individualized instruction. These limitations resulted in classrooms that were often larger, more rigid, and more dependent on repetition and collective instruction.

And yet, school has always been a place where children learn how to exist in a shared world, follow structure, form relationships, meet expectations, and gradually grow into life beyond the home. The tools have changed and the expectations have evolved, but the experience of being a child in school — figuring out where you fit and how to move within a structured environment — carries a steady thread across the decades.

Meat Grinder

Most kitchens in 1900 had a meat grinder — a hand-cranked device that clamped to the edge of the kitchen table. Cooks would grind up various types of meat, forcing chunks through a perforated cutting plate to produce ground meat in an era before prepackaged minced meat was available. The home grinder could be used to transform tough, cheap cuts into something workable; could double as a sausage maker (using specialized attachments); and could grind leftovers for use in pies, hash, or rissoles, ensuring that nothing was ever wasted. 

Icebox

The first domestic electric refrigerators appeared in the 1910s, at which time they were considered a rare luxury. Even by the start of the 1930s, only 8% of U.S. households owned a fridge. In 1900, refrigeration required an icebox. This was typically a wooden box lined with metal, into which a large block of ice was placed in a compartment, cooling the shelves below where perishable produce was stored. Fresh blocks of ice were delivered by the local carrier. It was an imperfect system, but it kept milk from souring and meat from spoiling, and was the most effective form of food preservation available at the time. 

Hand-Crank Mixer

The first electric mixer was patented in 1908, but it was intended for commercial use; domestic electric blenders didn’t become popular until the 1920s and ’30s. Before that, home cooks had to rely on the essential hand-crank mixer, one of the period’s small but invaluable triumphs of mechanical ingenuity. These mixers, sometimes known as rotary egg beaters, used a simple gear mechanism to spin two wire whisks simultaneously when a handle was cranked. The rotary beater made meringues, cakes, and souffles genuinely achievable for the home cook, reducing mixing times from potentially more than an hour to just a few minutes. The basic design was so effective that it remained largely unchanged for decades — and some people still keep them on hand today for quick and easy tasks. 

Mortar and Pestle

Humans have been using the mortar and pestle since the Stone Age, and many chefs and artisanal home cooks still swear by the tool set today. Back in 1900, it was a standard kitchen apparatus used daily for grinding spices, crushing salt, pounding dried herbs, and preparing medicines. It could be made from a variety of materials, including stone, glass, and clay. Blenders, food processors, and spice grinders eventually made the mortar and pestle less common, but the tools are still frequently found in both commercial and domestic kitchens, partly because they’re quick and easy to use for simple tasks. Using a mortar and pestle is also the best way to grind and crush ingredients without losing flavor and aroma. 

Coffee Mill

Instant coffee wasn’t readily available in the U.S. in 1900, and wouldn’t be for at least another 10 years. A coffee mill was therefore an absolute necessity for coffee lovers, and you’d find one in most American kitchens at the time. Ground coffee went stale quickly, so in 1900 you ground your own — every morning, by hand, in a small box-shaped mill with a crank handle on top and a drawer at the bottom to collect the grounds. The hand grinder produced a fresh, coarse grind that went directly into a stovetop pot. 

Butter Churn

Not everyone owned a butter churn in 1900 because in urban areas people could buy butter from a local shop. But for people living in more rural areas, it was an essential kitchen tool. Butter churns were normally tall, wooden or ceramic vessels with a hand crank that moved paddles or plungers inside, turning cream into butter. This was a physically demanding kitchen task — often assigned to older children or servants, when available — that could take more than an hour. The resulting butter was then lifted out and further worked with wooden paddles to squeeze out the remaining buttermilk, which could be used in pancakes, bread, and biscuits. In 1900, very little was thrown away if it could be used somehow in the kitchen.

Schoolteacher 

Teacher salaries varied significantly depending on the region and whether a school or college was in a rural or urban area. But generally speaking, teachers were not paid very well in the early 20th century. It was one of the few professional occupations open to women in the 1920s, but pay was modest for both sexes. Elementary school teachers in smaller cities earned at the low end of the range, while high school teachers and those in larger urban districts could earn somewhat more. Typical annual salaries ranged from $1,000 to around $2,500 (about $16,500 to $41,000 today), but a teacher in a large, prestigious school in New York, for example, could earn $3,700 (around $60,000 today).

Physician

In the 1920s, the medical profession grew in influence and prestige as medical standards and demand increased — along with the cost of medical care. Doctors therefore sat near the top of the income hierarchy, often earning several times the national average. In 1929, the average income of all civilian physicians, including interns, residents, and fellows, was $5,304 (around $102,000 today). General practitioners in small towns earned at the lower end, while specialists and urban physicians could earn considerably more. At the highest echelons of the medical profession, a physician could earn a gross income of $9,000 per year (about $174,000 in today’s earnings) — far more than the average worker in 1920s America.

Nurse 

Nursing was an almost exclusively female profession in the 1920s, which meant it was systematically underpaid relative to its demands and responsibilities, due to gender discrimination. According to reports from 1927, the average salary for a public health nurse was $1,720 (around $32,000 today), while institutional nurses earned $2,079. In many cases, especially for student nurses (who would have earned well below the aforementioned salaries), the hours were incredibly long, with nurses often on duty for 20 to 24 hours straight. 

Police Officer 

Police officers were solidly working-class earners in the 1920s, with pay varying by city size. In 1924, a congressional report recommended that the salaries of police officers in Washington, D.C., should range from $1,500 to $5,200 per year (around $29,000 to $100,000 today). At the lower end were regular officers, while majors and superintendents earned the big bucks. (The report notes similar salaries for members of the fire department.) By comparison, the four officers working at the Lawrence Police Department in Kansas were paid around $1,000 a year in 1920 (about $16,000 today). The job offered more stability than farm or factory work, but it was far more dangerous, especially in larger cities.  

Miner

Mining was one of the most dangerous jobs in America, but the pay didn’t reflect the risks involved. In 1925, John L. Lewis, the international president of the United Mine Workers of America, commented on an article that incorrectly claimed that anthracite (hard coal) miners earned an average of $1,936 a year. Setting the record straight, Lewis pointed out that of 45,678 men employed at anthracite mines, almost half earned less than $1,000, with many earning less than $800 (equivalent to about $15,000 a year today). For such perilous work, it was quite a meager wage.

1930s

1930: Mary, Robert
1931: Mary, Robert
1932: Mary, Robert
1933: Mary, Robert
1934: Mary, Robert
1935: Mary, Robert
1936: Mary, Robert
1937: Mary, Robert
1938: Mary, Robert
1939: Mary, Robert

The end of the 1920s represented the beginning of the Silent Generation, which continued until 1945. For children born in the 1930s, it was an era marked by scarcity, sacrifice, and traditional values. This generation is also known as the Traditionalist Generation, and the most popular baby names of the 1930s reflect that characteristic: As in the second half of the 1920s, Mary and Robert remained the most popular female and male names, respectively, throughout the decade.

1940s

1940: Mary, James
1941: Mary, James
1942: Mary, James
1943: Mary, James
1944: Mary, James
1945: Mary, James
1946: Mary, James
1947: Linda, James
1948: Linda, James
1949: Linda, James

With the end of the Silent Generation in 1945, a new era of baby boomers — so named for the “baby boom” that happened after World War II — was born. After decades as the No. 1 female name, Mary lost that designation when Linda claimed the top spot in 1947, boosted by the popularity of Jack Lawrence’s 1946 song “Linda.”For boys’ names, Robert’s 16-year reign at the top came to an end at the beginning of the decade, when James — a staple on the top 100 most popular names thanks to both its biblical and royal associations — took the No. 1 spot in 1940 and stayed there until 1952.

1950s

1950: Linda, James
1951: Linda, James
1952: Linda, James
1953: Mary, Robert
1954: Mary, Michael
1955: Mary, Michael
1956: Mary, Michael
1957: Mary, Michael
1958: Mary, Michael
1959: Mary, Michael

Linda continued to be the top female name at the start of the 1950s but swapped places with Mary (again) in 1953, when Mary reclaimed the No. 1 spot and stayed there for the rest of the decade. Meanwhile, three different boys’ names saw the No. 1 spot during the 1950s. James remained at the top for three years before Robert returned as the No. 1 name for just one year in 1953. In 1954, Robert slipped to No. 2 behind Michael — a biblical name historically associated with emperors, kings, and saints — which remained  the most popular male name for the rest of the decade.

1960s

1960: Mary, David 
1961: Mary, Michael
1962: Lisa, Michael
1963: Lisa, Michael
1964: Lisa, Michael
1965: Lisa, Michael
1966: Lisa, Michael
1967: Lisa, Michael
1968: Lisa, Michael
1969: Lisa, Michael

In 1960 and 1961, Mary was once again the most popular female name in the nation. In 1961, Lisa appeared on the list of the top five most popular names for the first time, coming in second behind Mary. The following year, Lisa surpassed Mary as the No. 1 female name, and stayed in the top spot for the rest of the decade. David, which first appeared in the top five most popular male names in 1948 and continually ranked between No. 2 and No. 5 for the next 12 years, finally took the top spot in 1960. Its reign was short-lived, though: David was bumped in 1961 by perennial favorite Michael, making 1960 the only year David has ever held the No. 1 spot, despite being in the top five 39 times over the past century.

1970s

1970: Jennifer, Michael
1971: Jennifer, Michael
1972: Jennifer, Michael
1973: Jennifer, Michael
1974: Jennifer, Michael
1975: Jennifer, Michael
1976: Jennifer, Michael
1977: Jennifer, Michael
1978: Jennifer, Michael
1979: Jennifer, Michael

Generation X, which includes people born between 1965 and 1980, introduced a generation of “latchkey kids,” children of dual-income or divorced parents whose free-range childhoods led them to be characterized as independent, resourceful, and cynical. Jennifer, which first appeared in the top five most popular female names in 1968, took the top spot in 1970 and stayed there throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s. Michael, which had dominated the top of the list since the mid-1950s, continued as No. 1 throughout the decade. Three names — James, Christopher, and Jason — vied for the No. 2 spot over the course of the decade, but neither Christopher nor Jason ever reached No. 1, unlike James, which had previously held that spot for 13 years.

1980s

1980: Jennifer, Michael
1981: Jennifer, Michael
1982: Jennifer, Michael
1983: Jennifer, Michael
1984: Jennifer, Michael
1985: Jessica, Michael
1986: Jessica, Michael
1987: Jessica, Michael
1988: Jessica, Michael
1989: Jessica, Michael

The year 1981 marked the start of Generation Y, better known as  millennials. This generation grew up during a time of major technological advancements, including personal computers and internet access. During the early 1980s, Jennifer continued to hold the top spot as the most popular female name, but 1985 saw another three-syllable “J” name take the lead: Jessica. This name may have appealed to parents who wanted a trendier “J” name than Jennifer, but the first recorded instance of Jessica actually dates back to William Shakespeare’s play, The Merchant of Venice. Meanwhile, Michael enjoyed another decade at No. 1, while Christopher remained No. 2 throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s, never quite surpassing the popularity of Michael.

1990s

1990: Jessica, Michael
1991: Ashley, Michael
1992: Ashley, Michael
1993: Jessica, Michael
1994: Jessica, Michael
1995: Jessica, Michael
1996: Emily, Michael
1997: Emily, Michael
1998: Emily, Michael
1999: Emily, Jacob

In 1993, the World Wide Web launched, introducing a whole new way of learning and communicating. The millennial generation came to a close in the mid-1990s, and 1997 is considered the beginning of Generation Z, also called “zoomers.” Jessica bounced between No. 1 and No. 2 for most of the decade before disappearing from the top five in 1998. Ashley, a name more commonly given to boys prior to the 1960s, held the lead in 1991 and 1992, but slipped to No. 2, No. 3, and No. 5 for the rest of the decade. Emily, another appealing “-ly” name, appeared in the top five in 1993 and held the lead for 13 years, starting in 1996. And after holding the No. 1 spot as the most popular male name for 44 of the previous 45 years, Michael was dethroned in 1999 by Jacob, a name that first appeared in the top five in 1995.

2000s

2000: Emily, Jacob
2001: Emily, Jacob
2002: Emily, Jacob
2003: Emily, Jacob
2004: Emily, Jacob
2005: Emily, Jacob
2006: Emily, Jacob
2007: Emily, Jacob
2008: Emily, Jacob
2009: Isabella, Jacob

The year 2001 marked the beginning of the second millennium CE, but the occasion didn’t have an impact on the most popular baby names for the youngest Gen Zers. Though computers and the internet changed the way millennials lived and worked, Generation Z is considered the first true digital native generation, as this cohort has never known a time when the internet wasn’t as close as their smartphone. Still, for older Gen X and millennial parents, sticking with tradition was the name of the name game in this booming digital era. Emily held the No. 1 spot for the entire decade until Isabella, which first appeared on the top five in 2006, took the lead in 2009. And Jacob, a biblical name with a more contemporary feel, replaced Michael after a long reign and remained No. 1 throughout this decade and into the next.

2010s

2010: Isabella, Jacob
2011: Sophia, Jacob
2012: Sophia, Jacob
2013: Sophia, Noah
2014: Emma, Noah
2015: Emma, Noah
2016: Emma, Noah
2017: Emma, Liam 
2018: Emma, Liam 
2019: Olivia, Liam

Those born in the 2010s are shaping up to be known as Generation Alpha. The oldest members are just entering their teen years and the qualities that will define their cohort are still being formed. That fact might be reflected in the number of names — four for girls and three for boys — that held the No. 1 spot over the decade. This decade saw a trend toward vintage and vintage-inspired names. Isabella started in the No. 1 spot just as it had ended the previous decade, but was displaced in 2011 by Sophia, which stayed at the top for three years before being replaced by Emma. Emma then stayed at No. 1 for four years, before Olivia claimed the No. 1 spot to finish the decade. Continuing its popularity from the previous decade, Jacob held the top spot as the most popular male name for three years before being unseated by Noah. Four years later, in 2017, Liam — a derivative of William that first appeared on the top five list in 2013 as the third most popular male name — replaced Noah as the most popular name for the rest of the decade.

2020s

2020: Olivia, Liam  
2021: Olivia, Liam 
2022: Olivia, Liam 
2023: Olivia, Liam  
2024: Olivia, Liam

We’re only a few years into this century’s ’20s, but the most popular baby names reflect how trends have shifted since the start of the new millennium. So far in this decade, Olivia and Liam are holding steady at No. 1, but old-fashioned names are making a notable comeback. Henry, which ranked as the 18th most popular male name in 1924, climbed to No. 8 in 2023, and Evelyn, which was the 12th most popular female name in 1924, was No. 9 in 2023. On the other hand, Robert and Mary, the two most popular names 100 years ago, now rank 89th and 135th in popularity, showing how much trends have changed in the last hundred years.

Sports Tickets

I’m a huge fan of the New York Yankees and go to roughly 40 games each year. Depending on where you sit, the price of tickets today can range from affordable to exorbitant. It’s not uncommon to pay as little as $10 for seats in the upper deck or bleachers, though luxury seats behind home plate may come with a face value exceeding $1,000 depending on the day of the week and opponent. Personally, I like to sit in the lower level toward the outfield, where seats tend to range between $50 to $100, depending on demand.

Back in 1950, on the other hand, the idea of paying $1,000 or even $100 to attend a Yankees game was unheard of. Admission to the bleachers for the 1950 season cost 60 cents (the equivalent of around $8 today), and seats in the grandstand were around $1.25 (equal to about $16.74 today). And the cost didn’t balloon much higher for the prime seats closer to home plate. For instance, a ticket stub from July 16, 1950, shows a price of $2.50 (around $33.48 adjusted for inflation) for box seats in section 10 of the old stadium. Similar tickets in the current stadium would cost around $250 in today’s dollars. 

Even World Series tickets were relatively reasonable back in the day. Just look at this stub from Game 3 of the 1950 World Series, which cost $6.00 (equal to around $80 today) for a reserved lower-level seat. When the Yankees made it to Game 3 of the World Series in 2024, I paid around $250 for my seat in a similar location. (That game and the rest of the series turned out to be among the most soul-crushing sporting experiences I've had — but that's a story for another day.)

Groceries

It’s not all bad news for denizens of the 21st century, however. In 1950, many grocery staples cost more than they do today if you account for inflation. One example is dairy products. According to U.S. Department of Labor statistics, a gallon of fresh milk at the grocery store cost roughly 77 cents in 1950 (around $10 adjusted for inflation). Today, the average price for a standard gallon of milk is just under $4. Basic eggs were also costlier, as the price for a dozen averaged roughly 53 cents (equal to around $7.10 today). But at my local grocery, I can get a dozen eggs for around $2.86, assuming I stick to basic brands instead of organic or cage-free.

Another food that has gotten cheaper is beef: A pound of hamburger meat was priced around 51 cents in 1950 (roughly $6.83 adjusted for inflation), whereas if I run to my local Trader Joe’s the cost for a pound of ground beef is about $6.49. A pound of white bread was also more of a relative financial burden 75 years ago, albeit only slightly. In 1950, you would have paid 14 cents (around $1.87 adjusted for inflation), while at my Trader Joe’s it’s $1.81. 

And a pound of basic coffee would have run you an average cost of 75 cents (around $10 adjusted), compared to the $9.26 people pay on average today. However, I do like to splurge on specialty brews from a company called Joshua Tree Coffee, but even then I’m only paying $16 per pound for a high-quality artisanal product. A pound of white sugar — a necessity for those occasions where I’ve baked banana bread or carrot cake — cost roughly 48 cents (around $6.43 adjusted for inflation) in 1950, but is priced around 99 cents today. A pound of bananas was priced around 17 cents in 1950 (equal to roughly $2.28 in today’s dollars), while the average cost today is just 66 cents. 

When I fill up my grocery cart, it can feel like I’m breaking the bank with just the basics. But when you dig into the numbers, it turns out that the relative price would have been even steeper in 1950. While you could fill up a cart for $10 back then, $10 was a hefty chunk of most people’s household income. 

Dining Out

One of the things I enjoy most about living in New York is taking advantage of the city’s excellent food scene, but dining out comes at a cost — and unlike groceries, it’s a higher relative cost than it would have been if I lived here in 1950.  

For example, 75 years ago, it would’ve cost me no more than 15 cents for a slice of classic New York pizza — around $2 adjusted for inflation. But the median price of an average plain slice is now around $3.81, including at my neighborhood slice shop Libretto’s. The difference is even more stark when eating at a fancy restaurant. Let’s look at my favorite steakhouse, Keens Steakhouse on 36th Street. While I don’t exactly frequent the establishment, it’s always nice to go for a special occasion — and it would have been less of a splurge in the mid-20th century.

This local institution is known for its famous mutton chop, which was priced at $3.45 back in 1950 (around $46.20 when adjusted for inflation). I like to order an appetizer and dessert as well, so let’s add in a shrimp cocktail, priced at $0.85 in 1950 (equal to around $11.38 in today’s dollars) and an order of ice cream at $0.35 (equal to around $4.69 today). Also, 1950 was before New York state instituted any sales tax, and people commonly tipped around 10% on their bill, bringing the total cost of the full meal at Keens to around $5.12 (around $68.56 adjusted for inflation). But if I order those same exact menu items today, the mutton chop will run me $73, the shrimp cocktail $29, and the ice cream $11. Add in tax and tip and I end up with a total bill of around $145.49 for my fancy dinner.

Travel

I love road trips and try to take at least one a year — I recently drove across the country from NYC to the Pacific Northwest, down into northern California, across to Utah, and back. If I were driving across the country back in 1950, I could expect to see a gallon of gas cost about $0.27 (around $3.62 adjusted for inflation) — making it total about $4.05 (around $54.23 adjusted for inflation) to fill up a typical 15-gallon tank. Today, the national average for a tank of gasoline hovers around $2.85, meaning if I were to fill up the 15-gallon tank of the Mazda I often drive, it would only run me $42.75 — cheaper in terms of relative cost.

Flying is also relatively cheaper today than it was in 1950. At the end of 2025, I took my first flight to Europe, which cost me $1,000 for round-trip airfare. But back to 1950, we were still in the nascent days of commercial aviation, and flying was more of a luxury than commonplace. This meant that ticket prices were sky high — the cost of air travel didn’t come down until the passage of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. The average round-trip ticket for a transatlantic flight from New York City cost roughly $675 in 1950 (around $9,038 when adjusted for inflation). That’s more than nine times higher in terms of relative cost than what I paid to cross the ocean two months ago, bringing into question whether I could’ve even afforded the trip back in 1950. 

Clothing

The 1950 Sears catalog provides some great insight into what I might have paid for clothes in 1950, and in this particular area of life, the difference isn’t significant. Back then, formal button-down collared shirts ranged between $1.69 and $3.85 (around $22.63 to $51.55 when adjusted for inflation). Casual cotton button-down tops went for $1.57 (equal to roughly $21.02 today), while nicer wool tops were priced around $7.50 (equal to around $100.43 today). Socks hovered between 39 cents to $1.49 for a package of four to five (around $5.22 to $19.95 in today’s dollars), and tees cost $1.75 to $2.75 (around $23.43 to $36.82 adjusted for inflation). Your typical pair of Levi’s jeans — a staple of my wardrobe — cost $3.50 in 1950 (around $46.87 adjusted for inflation).

All in all, the prices were largely in line with what I spend on clothing today. The exception may be socks and tees — which are slightly costlier now — but otherwise I rack up similar bills when shopping at places such as Uniqlo or Kohl’s.

Public Transit 

While I don’t take the subway or bus daily, I do take it regularly, and it’s quite surprising to learn that I’m paying double the relative cost that transit riders would have paid in 1950. Earlier this month, standard New York City subway and bus fares increased from $2.90 to $3.00 a ride. But back in 1950, the fare was just 10 cents, or around $1.34 when adjusted for inflation. It’s a small difference, but one that adds up if you take public transit regularly, making this aspect of city life slightly more affordable for the New Yorkers of yesteryear.