How the United States of 1939 compares to the nation of today
If you appreciate articles like this, sign up for our daily email newsletter and support us with a donation.
Vanity Fair got me.
I usually don't pay much attention to entertainment magazines, but the headline "Wizard of Oz: Five Appalling On-Set Stories" caught my attention.
In a world of media constantly trying to disparage the past, this headline really shouldn't have been all that interesting. But, it made me wonder if the instances really were "appalling" or just the typical weak-minded complaints from a soft-skinned generation about a much rougher time.
I was wrong.
Some of the things recounted in the article made me glad for modern health and safety standards (a feeling I do not have often). From the Tin Man being hospitalized after ingesting the aluminum in his makeup to the witch and her double catching fire from the same poor-quality stunt design, I felt so much happier the worst I have to face on-screen is making sure my tie is straight and that there's nothing in my teeth.
But, the article did end in a fascinatingly typical way. The last line of the piece, calling attention to two very common media tropes, hinted at how evil corporations never pay their employees well, and especially underpay women. And, more than that, what caught my attention was what it said: "The (stunt) double was reportedly paid $35 for her day's work."
That was it. That was the last line. And I was left wondering if $35 was a lot or a little for a day's work in Hollywood in 1939. That question took me down a rabbit hole of comparison, inquiring what life was like back then when compared to now.
If we look at the United States in 1939, we immediately notice a few things.
First, it turns out, $35 was a lot back then. The equivalent of $792 today, and I bet there are many of us who would love to make that much for one day's work today. And, the rabbit hole went deeper.
According to a placard from the Wright Museum of World War II in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, in 1939 the average annual income in that area was $1,792.00 ($40,550 in 2024); a new automobile cost only $700 ($15,840); and a new house, $3,850 ($87,120). In other words, a new car cost roughly 40% of the average annual salary, and a new home approximately twice the annual salary.
Studying the same region today, the average income in that corner of New Hampshire has more than doubled to $89,992. Meanwhile, the average price of a new car has soared to $48,000, or 53% of the average annual salary, and while the average home price has skyrocketed to $485,943 – more than five times (5.39x, to be exact) the annual salary.
It gets worse. In 1939 the average income tax rate was 4%. This means a family earning the average annual income of $40,550 had $33,928 in after-tax income, or $3,244 a month in purchasing power. In 2021, the average tax rate for the average income of $89,992 was 21.5%, meaning the take-home income is $71,049 or $5,920 per month.
At first glance, it may seem that a family in 2021 is in a much stronger financial position than a family in 1939, as the take-home figure is considerably higher. Obviously, people make far more today than they did back then – but does that mean that they live far better? The reality is that, while take-home income is 82% higher today, prices have far outpaced those meager gains.
In 1939, the family with $3,244 per month would have paid about $374 for their mortgage, (11.5% of their monthly income). While the average cost of food was much lower, even if we used the same ratios as today (cost of food as a percentage of total income), their food costs would have been around $227 per month. In other words, mortgage and food costs together constituted about 18.5% of the family's total income, leaving them with $2,643 worth of expendable capital after those two expenses were paid.
Contrast that with today. Our income-earner – with his $5,920 per month and his home cost of $485,943 – would, with the same calculations and current interest rates, pay $2,384 per month for housing, or 40% of his monthly income. Tack on the $418 average monthly food cost and he is rapidly approaching 50% of his income going to just those two expenses, leaving him with about $3,118 in expendable income.
Still better, right?
Yes, but not by much. When you consider factors like GDP growth, level of prosperity, and increased productivity associated with the modern world, a $475 increase in total earnings after costs is rather anticlimactic after 85 years of "progress."
I understand that these simple calculations do not take into account every cost, or even every difference, between the time periods. But they do point to something that is often overlooked in attempts by government and media to show that the current thing or new ways are always the better choice.
Aside from the financial aspects, the America of old boasted several difficult-to-quantify benefits that are largely unknown today. You can see glimpses of these in older movies, but any connection to the reality of the past is (intentionally, I believe) left out in modern retellings of history.
In 1939, US society was significantly different than its contemporary counterpart. In spite of the tremendous hardships of the Great Depression, American society was characterized by a stability and cohesion – particularly in terms of family life, education and governance – that would be the envy of any government today.
One of the defining aspects of American life in the past was the stability of the family. In 1939, approximately 85% of children lived in two-parent households, compared to just 65% in 2024.
The divorce rate in 1939 was also far lower, with only 1.9 per 1,000 people divorcing. In the wake of the Sexual Revolution, the divorce rate skyrocketed, peaking at 5.3 per 1,000 in the 1980s (thankfully, declining today).
The family structure was generally centered around traditional roles, with men typically acting as breadwinners and women focusing on homemaking and raising their children. These roles were not only reinforced by societal norms, but also supported by the strong influence of the Church.
Churches played a pivotal role in shaping the moral compass of the community, emphasizing marriage as a sacred and lifelong commitment. The Church provided a common moral framework that contributed to lower divorce rates and a stable environment for raising children.
Immigration to the United States had been sharply limited due to the Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson-Reed Act), which established strict national origin quotas. As a result, immigration slowed almost to a halt during this period, contributing greatly to the Pro-American patriotic sentiment and cultural homogeneity that contributed greatly to the unity and prosperity of the postwar era.
Governance in 1939 was largely local, allowing communities to craft policies that reflected their desires, based on their values and traditions. This local control extended to policing, education, and public services. With a more homogeneous population, communities shared cultural and religious norms, making governance more efficient and fostering a strong sense of unity.
Education in 1939 was also largely a local affair. Schools were controlled by community school boards, and the curriculum was closely aligned with the community's values.
Religious instruction and patriotic teachings were common, reinforcing the shared moral framework of society. Teachers also had more authority in classrooms and discipline was stricter, contributing to an orderly learning environment.
Education today, especially since the advent of the Department of Education, has become more centralized, with federal guidelines shaping curriculum and reducing the autonomy of local communities. This change brought with it increased focus on progressive curricula and reduced discipline in schools, both of which have contributed to steep declines in academic performance.
Crime rates also reflect these shifts. In 1939, during the peak of organized crime, with its waves of armed bank robberies that shocked the American public, the homicide rate was approximately 6.3 per 100,000 people, compared to more than 18 per 100,000 in 2023.
Such data makes one question whether much of the "progress" of recent decades has been anything of the sort. Was the subversion of stronger community bonds, more intact families, shared faith and moral framework, and fewer cultural and social divisions, really worth the price?
Sadly, there is no such thing as a time machine, and even if there were, where would we begin to correct the errors? All we can do now is move forward from where we are with what we have. Hopefully, we can take the best of the lessons of history and find a way to regain the unity and prosperity of that era in our own time.
And, if nothing else, at least we have an extra $475 per month to play with.
Arthur is a former editor and consultant. Born in India to missionary parents, he spent his early career working in development for NGOs in Asia, Central America, and Africa.
Arthur has an educational background in history and psychology, with certifications from the University of Oxford and Leiden in the economics, politics, and ethics of mass migration and comparative theories in terrorism and counterterrorism. He is currently launching CivWest, a company focused on building capital to fund restorative projects and create resilient systems across the Western world.
コメント