A Daily History of Holes, Dots, Lines, the Unintentional Absurd & Nothing |1.6 million words, 7000 images, 3 million hits| History of Science, Math & Tech | Press & appearances in The Times, Le Figaro, The Economist, The Guardian, Discovery News, Slate, Le Monde, Sci American Blogs, Le Point, and many other places...
Where was the One Percent of 1916? Luckily, I found it at the end of this simple bar graph for The American Correspondence School advertisement in Illustrated World for January 1916, right at the end of the other 99% WWI was about at the half-way point, America still wasn't in the war, and there was little attention paid in the magazine to that fantastically bad Thing happening overseas. In any event, the ad tried to attract the 79% of the population making $1000/year or less through not-described correspondence school means, and at the same time flagging the top one-percent earners in the U.S. as though making $10,000+ per year.
This doesn't seem much like a high figure, except that the average person was making about $650/year, and the average house cost about ten times that amount. Today's 1% income/year folks take in about $400,000 (or about 25 times the average yearly salary of the 99%, and three times the cost of the average house). And according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that $10k/year is equal in buying power to about $212,000 yearly in 2013, so that odd-looking ten grand figure might be about right, even if it was probably all quickly made up in some composing room in Chicago 97 years ago.
If you were to look at this figure through comparative baseball eyes, it is particularly astonishing, given that in this decade or so there have been 65 players with $100,000,000 contracts, which makes for many dozens of players with 10 million/year salaries. But these are different times, and the baseball players of 1916 (the year of the first super market opening) were paid hardly anything at all relative to the income of the team owners, though baseball as a business at this point represented almost nothing of what it would become.
I don't mean to pick on baseball--it's just that it is the beginning of the World Series and the game is on my mind. And it doesn't work so well to pick out the one percenters in, say, physics, where Albert Einstein--who had a terrific year in 1916--was probably being paid in the 3% club region in spite of his rather exalted fractional 1% status.
In any even I was surprised to see "1%" appear in this graphic.
There are times when a reader can get a little piece of social history in an unexpected place. For example, in the math text book that was just addressed on this blog1, there is a short anterior section called "A Practical System of Book-Keeping for Farmers and Mechanics". It is here where the reader is introduced to the keeping of a Day Book (which is different from a ledger and a cashbook) where the merchant would keep a record of what was sold to whom and for how much. To that end the author includes three pages of a sample Day Book, which displays a host of information for the modern reader about what could be expected to be found in the generic cash-and-carry trade in the U.S. in 1836. Most of the goods sold would have been purchased to make something else--there were not many items that would be considered to be a product for end use. So someone might not buy a carriage though they would buy the stuff that would go into making a carriage, or the ingredients for making beer rather than the beer itself, and so on.
And so, some of the entries from this practice Day Book:
6 yards of calico ($2.65), 2 yards of broadcloth ($3.25), 217 pounds of iron @ 8cents/pound= $17.36, 37 pounds of cheese ($3.70), 41 pounds of feathers ($28.70), 32 gallons of molasses, 300 pounds of pork (at 7 cents/pound), 30 bushels of corn ($13.50),1 cask of nails (225 pounds for $18), 32 gallons of molasses ($8), 30 pounds of harness leather ($16), 17 brooms ($2.08), 7 pounds of butter ($1.40), 7 tons of hay ($70), 50 dried hides ($200), 4 bushels of oats ($1.50), 1 cord of wood ($5), 28 pounds of lard ($4), 3 bushels of salt ($1.98), 75 yards of brown sheeting ($10.50), 500 pairs of men's shoes ($475), 120 pounds of blistered steel ($3.88), 100 pounds of Russia iron ($5), 300 pounds of bacon ($40), 3 pounds of coffee (48 cents), and 6 pounds of raisins ($1.99).
Fascinating--but even more so from a bit found earlier in the book--an interesting and longish example for practical mathematics, a very detailed question for addition. The presentation is a nearly full-page list of the contents of a country store, the inventory of which was being purchased by "a certain clerk" thus giving issue to the addition problem as well as a hint to what was found in a general store in 1836.
In this addition problem (which is somewhat problematic in that in the overall price column there is no differentiation between dollars and cents, so "4" means $4.00 anfd "50" can mean $50 or 50 cents) there are 46 entries, almost all of which are standard necessaries, with a few luxury items tossed in for the benefit of those who would have the occasional disposable income for such a thing. Overall the list is dominated by basics: sugar (354 pounds worth), tea, coffee, pork, beef, ham, rum, brandy, wine, vinegar, (40) empty barrels, (63) empty hogsheads, vinegar, axes, whips, wooden pails, kettles, tubs, ploughs, and rakes, and more (as we can see below). Less common was the book stock: 2 Hymn Books, 4 Perry's Spelling books, 2 Dwight's Geographies, and one copy of the iconic Morse's GeographyAnd it looks as though the buyer purchased everything for about $1071.00--which was a considerable sum. The average farm laborer was paid about $10/week, plus room and board in 1840; a carpenter might make $1-1.50 per say, while laborers in manufacturing (glass, iron, wool, cotton) all made about 80 cents-1.00 per day2. That means it would take the average man four years to save $1000, and probably more. In order to start this business to make money, you certainly needed to have some money to get started in making it. In the meantime, this is an interesting peep into what people bought in country stores in 1836.
1. Rosell C. Smith, Practical and Mental Arithmetic, on a New Plan, in which Mental Arithmetic is Combined with the Use of the Slate... which was printed in Hartford beginning in 1829 (my copy being printed in 1836).
2. See here for a decent look at what wages were like over decades in the 19th century.
The title of this quick post seems both irresistibly attractive and horribly repelling in an oh-g_d-is-this-what-we're-down-to dissertation for a moderately-good university. But really all this post is is a title--I stumbled upon this table looking for emigration figures to illustrate a dot-matrix map from the United States Industrial Commission (printed in 1900), volume 3, which concentrated on the statics and sociology of prison labor. So what this table shows is the effect of prisoners' labor on the price of pork and pork fat in the Chicago market for a ten year period at the end of the 19th century, and what we see is that the "free" labor in prison in this area produced cheaper prices in the fat market. There you have it. [Source: Internet Archive, here.]
The "working poor" of England may have been half of that--working, that is, and hard at work, though not being paid even enough to be considered poor. Their story has been told in many ways, of course, the backbone of the Industrial Revolution succeeding on their bones, observed and recorded and shared by Charles Dickens and others, and on and on, told elsewhere in brevity and quick detail better than I can do so here.
I did want to make a quick comment about a very small detail in the state of those poor people, found in Charles Kingsley's Cheap Clothes and Nasty, printed in 1850. It is quite a documentarian's tour of the plight of the poor, written by a very able observer. (Kingsley is a very interesting person--an historian, priest in the Church of England, social commentator, and novelist. As a matter of fact he was exceptionally prolific, producing during his lifetime (1819-1875) a fine long list of accomplishment, three of which have survived to this day as sorts of minor classics. But what he did with great regularity was publish books--34 of them in 25 years between 1850 and 1875, including 15 during the decade of the 1850's, 11 in the 1860's, and 8 in the 1870's to his death in 1875. Perhaps as important as all of that was the role he played in the arrival of C. Darwin's On the Origin of Species..., as Kingsley wrote one of the earliest reviews of the book and defended it strongly.)
But getting back to the poor, Kingsley made a very strong case for the poor being less so than that, as we see here:
"Folks are getting somewhat tired of the old rodomontade that a slave is free the moment he sets foot on British soil! Stuff! - are these tailors free? Put any conceivable sense you will on the word, and then say - are they free? We have, thank God, emancipated the black slaves; it would seem a not inconsistent sequel to that act to set about emancipating these white ones.Oh! we forgot; there is an infinite difference between the two cases - the black slaves worked for our colonies; the white slaves work for us. But, indeed, if, as some preach, self interest is the mainspring of all human action, it is difficult to see who will step forward to emancipate the said white slaves; for all classes seem to consider it equally their interest to keep them as they are; all classes, though by their own confession they are ashamed, are yet not afraid to profit by the system which keeps them down..."--Charles Kingsley, Clothes, Cheap and Nasty, 1850
Kingsley continues on with the stuff of research, uncommonly sharing the lot of what a vast section of English society experienced daily though mostly in silence.
Another excruciating and interesting report was made by George Godwin in his London Shadows, a glance at the "homes" of the thousands of 1854 (the whole work found on the wonderful Victorian London blog, here and about which I posted about here).
Godwin--an influential architect and editor of the very influential The Builder as well as a social reformer, who lived from 1813-1888) wrote an expose of how so many Londoners lived at the middle of the century. It is also illustrated with woodcuts of the places in which people lives--artwork in wood and ink that have a very definite quality of the unforgiving cameras of Life magazine a century later. The images are awakening and abrupt--all the bitter observation of George Orwell, only told much more quickly, like a person trying to describe a raging house fire before the thing burned itself out. Its a powerful work, and I can't help but think that those reading it in 1854 must have been appalled not only by the deep visualization of the state of the working poor, but also by its scope, and the possible revelation of England's basic bedrock.
Here is an example of Godwin's work, which includes observations on not only housing the poor, but clothing them as well, and published in the editorial pages of journal The Builder. He presents one aspect of their lot by discussing their clothing and its purchasing, bought for what the polite reading circles who would find The Builder to be almost for no money at all, though the few pennies spent on a pair of shoes or shirt were a major factor in the weekly ration of the working poor., particularly if they were making 5 or 10 pounds per year. It was an interesting way for Godwin to present to the non-poor what the other-half really had to live like, and perhaps by reaching out to the population that did the building-of-London he probably hoped to affect some sort of reform in the way in which the poor had to live and work. An example of the Godwin work:
"One of the London missionaries (a body whose valuable services can only be properly appreciated by those who understand the nature and extent of the evil to which we are directing attention) says:- "Persons who are accustomed to run up heavy bills at fashionable tailors' and milliners', will scarcely believe the sums for which the classes we are describing are able to purchase the same articles for their own rank in life." A missionary who recently explored Rag-fair, reported that a man and his wife might be clothed from head to foot for from 10s. to 15s. Another missionary stated that 8s. would buy every article of clothing required by either a man or a woman, singly. In Pennant's time it was less. He says (speaking of the other Rag-fair), that the dealer pointed out a man to him, and said: "Look at him. I have clothed him for fourteen-pence. A third missionary reported : "There is as great a variety of articles in pattern, and shape, and size, as I think could be found in any draper's shop in London." The mother may go to "Rag-fair" with the whole of her family, both boys and girls,- yes, and her husband, too, and for a very few shillings deck them out from top to toe. I have no doubt that for a man and his wife, and five or six children, £1 at their disposal, judiciously laid out, would purchase them all an entire change. This may appear to some an exaggeration: but I actually overheard a conversation in which two women were trying to bargain for a child's frock; the sum asked for it was 1½d. and the sum offered was a penny, and they parted on the difference..."
It isn't often that you see money represented by dry measure, but that's what happened here in these two examples from the fantastic Walker Statistical Atlas ( Statistical Atlas of the United States based on the results of the tenth census 1880 with contributions from many eminent men of science and several departments of the government Comp. under the authority of Congress by Francis A. Walker, M. A., superintendent of the tenth census ... and published in 1884). What we see here is a history of American federal indebtedness from 1791 (when the public debt stood at 75.1 million dollars) to 1881 (about 2 billion). Using the CPI (consumer price index) as a factor to translate that number in 2008 dollars (or so), the 2 bil grows to about $40 billion (a nickel then is about a dollar now). The interesting part of the legend--and what drew me to this graphic even before its somewhat unique shape--state "1"--370 millions", that is one inch of pink horizontal bar stands for about $370,000,000, and the last bar on this graph is about 6 inches long, which, adjusted for inflation, would now be about 10 feet long. .That said, the really interesting part comes next--if we use this measure to graph a horizontal bar for the American debt as it stands in 2008, it would pink a pink bar that was about a HALF MILE long to express our 10(+) trillion dollars of debt. OR, somehow, the old debt of 1881 would be about 1 story of a house, while the 2008 version would be up one side of the Empire State Building and down the other (and yes that includes the aerials). I don't know how to put this comparison in context, the differences are so staggering.
After having popped a neuron or two trying to get my head around that one, we'll further confuse the situation with the second chart, which shows the total net indebtedness of the U.S. in 1881 in terms of square inches; or, at the bottom of it all, a 7x7 inch square represented the entirety of the $3 billion owed out. 49 square inches. Working backwards this time, our $10 trillion (or $10,000,000,000,000.00 writ large) adjusted back to a CPI value in 1881 would have covered about 88 PAGES of the atlas or 9,000 square inches. Again, the numbers are just almost too big to mean anything.
We, as a country, owe one hell of a lot of money.
And yes there are many different ways of trying to figure out what one 1881 dollar "means" in terms of 2008 dollars, but the CPI is the most simple to use and least argumentative and at least gives a pretty good idea of scale. It would be more useful to try and establish the degree of difficulty of turning the corner on the debt in 1881 compared to doing that today, but this is just a late-night post at the end of the week, and I don't have a good clue about how to try and measure that bit simply.
A year and two weeks after the end of WWI, the Illustrated London Newspublished this compelling graphical display comparing
the British naval losses at Jutland to three other great sea battles (Camperdown, the Nile and Trafalgar).The battle near Jutland (Denmark)
was the largest naval engagement of WWI, involving the German Navy’s High Seas
Fleet and the Royal Navy Grand Fleet, and took place May 31-June 1, 1915 (“The
Day”).It was an absolutely enormous
engagement, with 250 vessels involved (151 for the Royal Navy, 99 for the
The end result of the battle was mixed and still debated
today; neither side could convincingly claim a conclusive victory from the
The Royal Navy losses at Jutland
were staggering: 6,094 killed and 570 wounded, with German losses at 2,551
killed and 507 wounded.
And while this graphical display places Jutland in a weak
context with these other battles, and as pleasing as the thing is visually, the
larger mark, the great lurking statistical and human beast lurking there in the
mix of silhouettes and data, occurs about halfway down the far right column.
Here we see the losses for five ships: the Queen Mary, the Invincible, the
Indefatigable, the Defence, and
the Black Prince.Together, some 5066 men served aboard these
vessels; at the end June 1, 1915, 5,059 of them would be dead.Everyone aboard the Indefatigable, Defence
and Black Prince would be killed; 1
would survive on the Invincible, and
6 would survive the killing of the Queen
Mary. Astonishing, really.And there
are no other numbers like this on this chart.
As certain and as clear as this representation seems, and as
straightforward and seemingly elementary as it looks, I was shocked to see the
numbers for those five Royal Navy ships, a “hidden” history within a broad
a long, developing thread on the graphical display of quantitative data--and
especially that which uses man-made objects for comparison—is this interesting
bit from a Romanian mining publication from 1933.
huge mound next to the EiffelTower shows the consumption of wood in Romania over a
ten year period, a stack of wood 700 metres long and 1500 metres high. Evidently this wall has only the most rudimentary depth of a metre, as the legend reads that the volume of the woodpile is 1,050,000 metres cubed, which is the same as its square area. So somebody missed something, here, though the artist did supply some nice shadowing.
above it appeared this comparison for the amount of oil consumed over the same
ten year period
not sure why this comparison was being made.This does come in the interwar period which saw a great expansion in
Romanian territory and a vast modernization effort following the country’s devastating
experience in WWI. Maybe it was illustrating modernization from wood-burning power/heating sources to oil-based. I really don't know--I just liked the Eiffel Tower being dwarfed by a massively tall and impossibly skinny woodpile.
I like bumping circles as modes of graphically conveying
quantitative data—it is more unusual than most ways of portraying statistics
and belongs mostly in the 19th century.
The first example is relatively early, in the first class of
this sort of information display, published in Thomas Bradford’s (1802-1887)
superior Comprehensive Atlas
Geographical, Historical and Commercial in Boston in 1835. Circles are the entire métier
of this chart, showing the sizes of the continents and oceans, concentric circles
nested inside each other, then branching out into three columns of
progressively smaller circles showing the comparative sizes of islands, seas
and lakes, all (interestingly) presented on the same scale.It is a virtual one-stop, single-image display
showing the graphical sizes of 59 geographical entities in relation to one
another, making the understanding of their comparative sizes a simple,
Prettier but (initially) more difficult to use are the next
two charts, the first showing the areas and populations of countries compared
to that of the United States
(in 1890), and the second showing the public debts of those same
countries.At first the display looks a
little confusing. But once you settle in and get your eyes accustomed to the
manner of presentation, the charts are actually very easy to use and very
Moving over from circles to dots is this population map by
Frère de Montizon Armand Joseph, Carte
philosophique figurant la population de la France, published in 1830 (as
the first of its kind).
The ubiquitous pie-chart only made its first appearance in
1801, the work of he gifted and possibly polymathic William Playfair.He was an engineer (serving as apprentice to
the inventor of the threshing machine, Andrew
Meikle, and personal assistant to James Watt)
and economist, and occasional mathematician, who also invented the line graph
(1786), bar chart (1801)and
circlegraph(1801).But for this and all of his other work, he
died in poverty and not comfortable1.
1.Works by William Playfair include:
1786. The Commercial and
Political Atlas: Representing, by Means of Stained Copper-Plate Charts,
the Progress of the Commerce, Revenues, Expenditure and Debts of England
during the Whole of the Eighteenth Century.
Breviary; Shewing, on a Principle Entirely New, the Resources of Every
State and Kingdom in Europe. London: Wallis.
1805. A Statistical
Account of the United
States of America by D. F. Donnant.
Whiting. William Playfair, Trans.
1807. An Inquiry into the
Permanent Causes of the Decline and Fall of Powerful and Wealthy Nations:
Designed To Shew How The Prosperity Of The British
Empire May Be Prolonged.
I enjoy antiquarian window shopping, browsing photos or
engravings that depict goods for sale-- especially if the prices are posted. I
came back to this deep-in-the-Depression-fantastic photo made in 1935 by Berenice
Abbott (Springfield, Ohio, 1898-1991). Blossom
Restaurant, NYC was part of Abbott’s effort funded by the WPA, this time as
a part of her Changing New York Project, and captures the restaurant and
neighboring barber shop at 103 Bowery.The two businesses actually occupied the first floors and basement
(respectively) of the Boston Hotel, a standard flop house in a tough and
distressed part of the city that rented beds by the day, with 249 small
door-less cubicles offering a decent place to spend the night for 30 cents1.
30 cents seems to be the going rate for a bunch of things
going on in thispicture—30 cents for a
night in the hotel, 30 cents for the better offers of Morris Gordon’s
restaurant. 30 cents for a haircut and shave, 30 cents for a “women’s hair
bob”2 and so on.Which seems about
right—a fancy haircut and a decent better-than-average dinner for two will
probably cost about the same, today.
If you were really on a tight budget, 30 cents would buy you
three vegetarian dinners, or 6 offerings of bread and soup, or three visits to
the table of meatballs and bans, or pigs feet and kraut.
The price of a stick-to-your-ribs meal of sirloin and
potatoes and a pot of coffee also cost about the same as a gallon and a half of
gasoline (which cost about 20 cents).The same amount of gas today would get you a serving at McDonalds, or
something on that order, and perhaps even a happy take-away for the kids.
Perhaps the two even out.
30 cents might get you a loaf of bread, and wouldn’t quite get
you a dozen eggs.Now this is
remarkable, because if you adjust all of this according to modest CPI measures,
the average cost of a dozen eggs in 1935 was 37 cents, or (according to the US
Census website generating 1935 to 2009 prices adjusting to CPI) $5.84.The bread would cost $4.74 in 2009 dollars,
which means that the staples today—milk, bread, butter, eggs, were more
expensive in 1935 than today.Ditto
gasoline, which cost 19 cents a gallon, or $3 today—actually this would be much
more expensive in 1935 as the mileage the cars were getting then (and the
octane) was much lower, so the cost of running an automobile was considerably
higher.The cost of the car itself,
though, still favors the ‘thirties for modest transportation, which came in at
about 600 dollars, or just over $9000 in 2009 dollars3.
The 3-cent first class postage stamp of 1935 was more
expensive than first class postage in 2009:47 cents versus 44.When you look
at the increases and bitty spikes of the cost of a first class stamp over time
the whole thing looks pretty flat.
The average salary for a family of four in 1935 was about
1500/year, which oddly enough is about the same for the poverty guideline level
for 2009 established by the Department
of Health and Human Services (about $23,000).Minimum wage legislation didn’t begin until 1938, but if you take a look
at one of my earlier posts here on the history of this idea
you’ll see that the recent history of legislatinga meaningful level of acceptance for a base
living wage is mainly disgraceful, with relatively little accomplished (in
adjusted economic terms) for half a century.(The new minimum wage brings us to about a mid-way point as the highest
minimum wages paid in the 71-year history of the program.)
And so I thank Ms
Abbott again for her beautiful social commentary, and a happy 75th birthday
to this photograph.
1.A fantastic website and resource for changing aspects of
NYC can be found here, at Frank Levere’s Changing New York site. http://www.newyorkchanging.com/
2. I wrote a little bit about the appearance of women-only
hair salons in my post “The Staggering Beauty of Barber Shops” http://longstreet.typepad.com/thesciencebookstore/2009/02/the-staggering-beauty-of-barber-shops-naive-surreal-department-22.html
Even though masses of people had been used in panoramic photography for some years (thousands of people, usually soldiers, gathered to form a living liberty bell, or portrait of George Washington, or some such thing) , I cannot recall the use of humans as a direct statistical aid as in this bio-bar graph, found in the pages of The Illustrated London News for 1912 (page 357).
The article asks the question of whether air travel (and flight in general) was "safe", and responded by graphing its "yes" response with this image. The larger groups in the top half of the image represent the number of flyers flying for that particular country; the small groups below show the number of aviators killed. (There is no date of reference in particular but it seems to me that these are total deaths since flying began in Europe in earnest in 1905.) The photomontage below shows a selection of some of the most famous dead aviators. The number of deaths as a percentage of those flying seemed quite acceptable in the year of publication (1912) ; however if these figures were iterated forward to 2009 the death rate would be staggering, sending many thousands of aviators (and crew and passengers) to their deaths each year. In the United States we save that safety failure for deaths in automobile accidents, which still kill about the same number of Americans each year as were U.S. soldiers lost for the entire war in Vietnam. In spite of this the odds for survival looked pretty good in 1912.
I initially chose this pamphlet to be part of a larger series on terrific/unusual/bizarre cover designs--unfortunately its contents got in the way, a little. The cover still borders safely on the unique, and so does most of its contents, except for the graphical analysis of the depreciation of worldwide currencies that appears on its back cover. Here the information is actually pretty useful and unusual. It would've been more useful had the author included an end date for his comparisons--all we know is that he is looking at 1929 and the beginning of the Depression as a jump-off point, and we can assume that the end date is before the date of publication of the pamphlet (which actually isn't stated). Still, the graph is almost very useful. It is for this reason that Money and its Uses Winds Up in the "Blank and Empty Department" for its diligent but ultimately useless graphical display of data.
An income of $10,000 dollars a year, in the Depression year
of 1936, was a huge, fabulous fortune, controlling a major buying power for
food and cars and housing.(A fine brick
home for the solid middle class family of five would’ve cost well less than the 10K
per year—which means that this 1936 income would correlate somewhat to a 300,000/year income in 2009 dollars so far as buying power goes.) Unfortunately the author of
this pamphlet directed it at doctors who could supplement or insure their
income by selling their patients the pamphlet’s products:“Anabolic Food Products”, a quacky vitamin
supplement that evidently had really little use except to expand the
This reminded me of another pamphlet from a slightly earlier
period on the over-worked working poor.Report
to the Louisiana State Commission to Study the Conditions
of Working Women and Children… (published in 1914), chronicled the averages incomes
more so than the conditions of their work—and the statistical package was
simply not a pretty story.Reading through the
numbers hammered home how far away and mountainous $10,000 a year meant.
That big bump in the bar graph for factory wages shows that
the most frequent average weekly wage for women and children was about $3.75, with about a quarter of all of those
polled workers making less than that, and about half making 5.00 a week or so.
Multiply those figures by 52 and they don’t come out to much—specifically, they
don’t really approach the average income for a worker in the U.S. in 1914,
which was about $650 a year.It looks
like only 10% or so of all of these workers met this standard of $12.50 per
week.And this was for factory workers—things
get worse for most all other types of jobs—except for workers at a telephone
exchange (and that wouldn’t last for very long).
The conclusions the pamphlet reached are inescapable:“we can arrive at but one conclusion, namely:
that no matter what are the causes determining wages, the earnings of women in
industry are exceedingly low in a great many cases, and scarcely enough for
subsistence……the striking facts is that nearly three-fourths of all women in
industry are between 18 to 35 years of age, meaning that they are spending the
best years of their lives …at the lowest rate of wages…”
In 2009 women are still paid less than men--about 77-cents on the dollar less. Generally speaking the U.S. now imports most of its child labor produced goods--out of sight, out of mind.
This image of the building of the foundation of the Eiffel Tower, which appeared in the
Scientific American in 1888, appears both orderly and chaotic, a dizzy miasma
of activity and a confusion of right angles.(My six-year-old Tess says that it looks “worky”.)Part of the issue is the fine quality of the
jumble, with 90-degree angles everywhere, which confuses the eye.Another part is the perspective, which is odd
in places, and which takes the whole of it and makes the print into a near
Escher-like experience of impossibility.IT is this spatial confusion which makes this print so uncomfortable to
me. For instance it seems that the observer’s point of view may be in several
different positions, depending
on where you resolve to fix our eye: if you choose
the worker’s shed in the upper left corner as a reference point, the height of
you viewpoint will be different than if you used, say the first pointing man in
the foreground as reference.Also that
pointing man sands next to a little rail track that seems to hoist itself into
the air before disappearing.There’s
much else, but these examples will do for present.
These other images are the first nail & Eiffel Tower images I've ever seen. The explanation is simple enough, though I think I'd much rather not know.
This image and data is from the generally useful data and
interesting if not useless info Scientific
American Reference Book. A Manual for the Office, Household and Shop,
by Albert A. Hopkins, and published in 1903. It gloriously depicts the annual American finish nail production in terms of Eiffel Towers: there were evidently 10-million 100-pound kegs of these nails made in 1902; if they were made into one big nail, it would be this one--52' in diameter and 1000 feet tall. I guess another useful visual bit would be the representation of the number of new houses built/kegs of nails, which would make this image a little more meaningful; though, perhaps, we may not be going for meaning, here, necessarily.
The fossil record is generally one of the richest and most
compelling histories of the development of life on earth, a far-reaching,
cumulative record of extraordinary importance.There are the other, occasional, fossils that stand only by themselves,
and seem to have almost no use in the current time, living almost entirely
within themselves. The following statics seem to fall into that category—they
seem to be only a tombstone for an era, providing nothing except to tell the story
of what happened, existing only for that purpose, with no compelling
utilization for anything outside understand a small piece of life for the year
the stats were gathered.
The cause for this sentiment was found in a government
publication called Expense of Convicts of the United States (Letter from the
Comptroller of the Treasury…), 1 February 1859).The following comes in the first paragraph:
“I….report that 50 cents per months is allowed for rent of
prison for each prisoner in all the States and Territories uniformly.”
What this means is that the U.S. Treasury would pay 50 cents
to the state for keeping a federal prisoner.That is 50 cents per month, or about 1.7 cents per day. And that was
also for rent of the cell, exclusive of all else, each state furnishing the
government with the added cost, separately.
Evidently the only state in the country that prescribed an
exact amount for keeping a federal prisoner in a state institution was
Maryland, “which received 30 cents per day for all expenses, rent, board, medical attendance, clothing, bedding,
fuel, and etc” (italics in the original).The rest of the states and territories had diverging and different
expenses, from the southern district of New York at 25 cents a day for board,
and ranging up to about 50 cents per day in Michigan. Vermont charged an extra 60 dollars a year, in addition to the 6 bucks that they would
get for the rent of a Vermont
cell, to keep a prisoner—all expenses included—for one year, or about 18 cents
per day, total.
Unfortunately I don’t have the stats of how many federal
prisoner there were in 1859, so I don’t know how much of a percentage of the
budget was occupied by prison expenses.But what I do know is that even with tossing around the CPI with
multiplier effects and so on the figures translate in no way to keeping a
person in prison today.The cost of
housing someone in prison per year is around $35,000 a year, or $100 or so a
day.Adjusting the 1860 dollar via CPI
for 2009 makes that dollar worth about 25 dollars today, which would be a
doubling and a doubling again of keeping someone in prison.
I’m not so sure that those figures tell us much about what
we pay, today.
Next, I was having a breeze through The Prison System of the United States by S.J. Barrows
(Commissioner of Prisons for the U.S.) which was published in Washington in 1900.One particularly interesting
section was the publication’s solitary statistical table, “Appendix A”, which
detailed the crimes of the 625 men incarcerated in the state of Michigan in 1900.Well over half of all those in prison were
there for larceny and burglary, while about 12% were in the big house for
violent crimes. (Evidently 95% of this
number were literate and 70% could “cipher” (that is, produce basic arithmetical
skills)).The total crime list (such as
it was) includes the following:
Capital crimes (murder in the first and second degree) and
manslaughter, along with murderous assault comprised about 1% of the total
prison population.Other violent crimes
included assault with intent to do great bodily harm, rape, attempted rape,
rape and assault composed another 3%. Further assaults were classified under
(a) with intent to do great harm;and
then as assault on a female under 14 years; and on a female under 16 yearsThere were also the sexual assaults:taking indecent liberties with female; with
male child;unlawful and carnal
knowledge of a young child; inducing female to enter house of ill fame.These last two categories included about 5%
of the prisoners.Set aside form these
were the crimes of adultery, abduction, incest and sodomy, which included
another 3%.So it seems that the violent
offenders in prison in Michigan
in 1900 totaled out at 12% or so.
Burglary and larceny were thelargest categories, being subdivided into (a)
burglary accompanied by actual assault; (b) larceny; (c) larceny from a
dwelling; (d) larceny from a shop in daytime; (e) attempting larceny from
the person; (f) entering a church in daytime to steal; (g) breaking and
entering a store in daytime; (h) breaking and entering a store in
nighttime;(I) breaking and entering a
dwelling in daytime; (j) breaking and
entering a dwelling;(k) breaking and
entering a railroad car.
Then there were a few largely vacant offenses: Resisting an officer; Uttering and publishing
a forged note, breaking out of prison, perjury, arson, false pretense, and
malicious destruction of personal property, all combing for less than 2% of the
The vast majority of prisoners in Michigan were imprisoned for non-violent
crimes.The federal fathers, in the
meantime, recognized that people in prison shouldn’t be idle while paying their
debts to society, and should fill their time with work that would occupy the
prisoner and bring some income into the prison system:
“The moment we apply to the convict a
different system of economics because he is in prison we go astray. When we
subject to analysis the plans proposed for abolishing the competition of
convict labor we find them based on false principles or expecting results not
to be realized. The wiser way for the peace of society and the interest of the
State is to place prison industries on the same ground as free industries, and
defend that. It is also said in opposition to the contract system that
contractors do not pay as much for the labor of convicts as free laborers
In 2005 the federal offenses for which people are incarcerated include: Drug
Offenses 59.6%; Robbery 9.8%;Property
Offenses 5.5%;Extortion, Fraud, Bribery
6.8% ; Violent Offenses 2.7% ; Firearms, Explosives, Arson 8.6% ; White Collar
1.0%; Immigration 2.8%;Courts or
Corrections 0.8%;National Security
0.1%;Continuing Criminal Enterprise
0.8%;Miscellaneous 1.5% .54% of prisoner in state custody for the same
time were incarcerated for violent crimes, with drug offenses coming in at 20%
and property crimes at 19%.The racial
breakdown of prisoners in the U.S. is another tragedy: of the prison population
in toto of 2.3 million in 2008 there
were 4,777 black male inmates per 100,000 black males held in state and federal
prisons and local jails, compared to 1,760 Hispanic male inmates per 100,000
Hispanic males and 727 white male inmates per 100,000 white males—that means
that the black incarceration rate was double and then double and then
half-doubled again that of whites.What
this also means is that there were more blacks in jail cells than in college
dorm rooms in 2008.
I'm not sure that any amount of creative statistical mathemartistry could bring these figures to life for some sort of practical application in 2009, the present situation in the prisons being so immense and pervasive. Numbers and assorted data from the past usually have the capacity to help us see where we are today; as I said earlier, I think that these fossils are simply that: dead.
HMS Ships Firing On London,
1909, Old vs. New Comparing Shipboard
Firepower: a Compelling Comparative Graphic Display from the Illustrated London News for 24 July 1909
Without looking at the sub-title and explanation of this of this print (“Firing
from Thames Mouth to the Edge of Greater
London”) its purpose might be a fair mystery, given the ships and the targets
and all. The two large ships at bottom are a Dreadnaught Class battleship and a
(smaller) King Edward Class ship, and, yes, they are firing towards London—but they
are doing so to illustrate a point on modern weaponry and the vast, new
superiorities of British advances in the death/protection arts.
In June 1667 during the Second Anglo-Dutch War the British were set upon by
an running attack by the Dutch Admiral Michiel de Ruyter, who had advanced as
far up and into the coast as the mouth of the Thames.The Dutch advance up the Thames was repulsed,
though their secondary targets (so to speak) at Gravesend and the River Medway proved a scorching defeat for the British, and propelled
the rocky war to a quick peace favorable to the Dutch.
This image shows what could’ve been the results of that engagement at
Gravesend had the Dutch fleet been outfitted with the HMS’ new 12-inch guns—de Ruyter
would’ve been able to reach the outskirts of London from that position, and
could’ve b=done so from a distance of 25 miles or so. Of course the artist and
editor aren’t really suggesting a “what if” scenario to the course of events of
the Second Dutch War—they were merely creating a very compelling, highly
illustrative comparison from old to new firepower, and to perhaps quite some fears
about the strength of the Navy as the unstable and rickety international system
limped its way into WWI, just five years in the future.