Image by John White via Flickr
Just a simple post to show how the #1 names have become less and less popular throughout the years...
| YEAR | #1 BOY | PERCENTAGE | #1 GIRL | PERCENTAGE | |
| 1880 | John | 8.1546% | Mary | 7.2384% | |
| 1881 | John | 8.0981% | Mary | 6.9989% | |
| 1882 | John | 7.8316% | Mary | 7.0425% | |
| 1883 | John | 7.9071% | Mary | 6.6730% | |
| 1884 | John | 7.6478% | Mary | 6.6989% | |
| 1885 | John | 7.5517% | Mary | 6.4304% | |
| 1886 | John | 7.5821% | Mary | 6.4331% | |
| 1887 | John | 7.4190% | Mary | 6.3620% | |
| 1888 | John | 7.1187% | Mary | 6.2042% | |
| 1889 | John | 7.1808% | Mary | 6.1559% | |
| 1890 | John | 7.1027% | Mary | 5.9892% | |
| 1891 | John | 7.0293% | Mary | 5.9536% | |
| 1892 | John | 6.8760% | Mary | 5.8572% | |
| 1893 | John | 6.6498% | Mary | 5.6758% | |
| 1894 | John | 6.5957% | Mary | 5.5731% | |
| 1895 | John | 6.5703% | Mary | 5.4413% | |
| 1896 | John | 6.3055% | Mary | 5.4806% | |
| 1897 | John | 6.1914% | Mary | 5.4020% | |
| 1898 | John | 6.1766% | Mary | 5.2548% | |
| 1899 | John | 6.0678% | Mary | 5.3222% | |
| 1900 | John | 6.0618% | Mary | 5.2574% | |
| 1901 | John | 5.9680% | Mary | 5.1669% | |
| 1902 | John | 5.9571% | Mary | 5.1673% | |
| 1903 | John | 5.8835% | Mary | 5.1312% | |
| 1904 | John | 5.8537% | Mary | 5.1163% | |
| 1905 | John | 5.6261% | Mary | 5.1850% | |
| 1906 | John | 5.7360% | Mary | 5.2227% | |
| 1907 | John | 5.6643% | Mary | 5.2102% | |
| 1908 | John | 5.6151% | Mary | 5.2651% | |
| 1909 | John | 5.4229% | Mary | 5.2320% | |
| 1910 | John | 5.4915% | Mary | 5.4462% | |
| 1911 | John | 5.5704% | Mary | 5.5203% | |
| 1912 | John | 5.4462% | Mary | 5.5058% | |
| 1913 | John | 5.4688% | Mary | 5.5953% | |
| 1914 | John | 5.5531% | Mary | 5.6927% | |
| 1915 | John | 5.4008% | Mary | 5.6830% | |
| 1916 | John | 5.4205% | Mary | 5.6585% | |
| 1917 | John | 5.4052% | Mary | 5.7207% | |
| 1918 | John | 5.3929% | Mary | 5.6034% | |
| 1919 | John | 5.2721% | Mary | 5.6047% | |
| 1920 | John | 5.1699% | Mary | 5.7055% | |
| 1921 | John | 5.1173% | Mary | 5.7817% | |
| 1922 | John | 5.0888% | Mary | 5.7851% | |
| 1923 | John | 5.0754% | Mary | 5.7196% | |
| 1924 | Robert | 5.2006% | Mary | 5.6738% | |
| 1925 | Robert | 5.2897% | Mary | 5.5901% | |
| 1926 | Robert | 5.3353% | Mary | 5.5149% | |
| 1927 | Robert | 5.3082% | Mary | 5.7122% | |
| 1928 | Robert | 5.3175% | Mary | 5.5940% | |
| 1929 | Robert | 5.4012% | Mary | 5.4867% | |
| 1930 | Robert | 5.5016% | Mary | 5.4990% | |
| 1931 | Robert | 5.6590% | Mary | 5.4646% | |
| 1932 | Robert | 5.5158% | Mary | 5.4122% | |
| 1933 | Robert | 5.3145% | Mary | 5.3058% | |
| 1934 | Robert | 5.2593% | Mary | 5.2590% | |
| 1935 | Robert | 5.2856% | Mary | 5.0681% | |
| 1936 | Robert | 5.4963% | Mary | 5.0458% | |
| 1937 | Robert | 5.6539% | Mary | 5.0506% | |
| 1938 | Robert | 5.4806% | Mary | 4.9246% | |
| 1939 | Robert | 5.2635% | Mary | 4.8419% | |
| 1940 | James | 5.2667% | Mary | 4.7582% | |
| 1941 | James | 5.3185% | Mary | 4.6577% | |
| 1942 | James | 5.4808% | Mary | 4.5487% | |
| 1943 | James | 5.5183% | Mary | 4.6105% | |
| 1944 | James | 5.5402% | Mary | 4.5719% | |
| 1945 | James | 5.4288% | Mary | 4.4042% | |
| 1946 | James | 5.2990% | Mary | 4.1829% | |
| 1947 | James | 5.1009% | Linda | 5.4838% | |
| 1948 | James | 4.9702% | Linda | 5.5205% | |
| 1949 | James | 4.8213% | Linda | 5.1845% | |
| 1950 | James | 4.7384% | Linda | 4.5729% | |
| 1951 | James | 4.5656% | Linda | 4.0038% | |
| 1952 | James | 4.4113% | Linda | 3.5264% | |
| 1953 | Robert | 4.3065% | Mary | 3.3359% | |
| 1954 | Michael | 4.2795% | Mary | 3.4156% | |
| 1955 | Michael | 4.2272% | Mary | 3.1514% | |
| 1956 | Michael | 4.2254% | Mary | 2.9986% | |
| 1957 | Michael | 4.2380% | Mary | 2.9128% | |
| 1958 | Michael | 4.2036% | Mary | 2.7043% | |
| 1959 | Michael | 3.9369% | Mary | 2.6210% | |
| 1960 | David | 3.9670% | Mary | 2.4748% | |
| 1961 | Michael | 4.0319% | Mary | 2.2958% | |
| 1962 | Michael | 4.0451% | Lisa | 2.2737% | |
| 1963 | Michael | 4.0571% | Lisa | 2.8190% | |
| 1964 | Michael | 4.0774% | Lisa | 2.7733% | |
| 1965 | Michael | 4.2761% | Lisa | 3.2981% | |
| 1966 | Michael | 4.4009% | Lisa | 3.2421% | |
| 1967 | Michael | 4.6323% | Lisa | 3.0544% | |
| 1968 | Michael | 4.6179% | Lisa | 2.8975% | |
| 1969 | Michael | 4.6559% | Lisa | 2.5550% | |
| 1970 | Michael | 4.4766% | Jennifer | 2.5199% | |
| 1971 | Michael | 4.2678% | Jennifer | 3.2409% | |
| 1972 | Michael | 4.2647% | Jennifer | 3.9446% | |
| 1973 | Michael | 4.2039% | Jennifer | 4.0192% | |
| 1974 | Michael | 4.1443% | Jennifer | 4.0297% | |
| 1975 | Michael | 4.2181% | Jennifer | 3.7283% | |
| 1976 | Michael | 4.1012% | Jennifer | 3.7841% | |
| 1977 | Michael | 3.9549% | Jennifer | 3.5851% | |
| 1978 | Michael | 3.9299% | Jennifer | 3.4263% | |
| 1979 | Michael | 3.7808% | Jennifer | 3.2920% | |
| 1980 | Michael | 3.7032% | Jennifer | 3.2804% | |
| 1981 | Michael | 3.6928% | Jennifer | 3.1906% | |
| 1982 | Michael | 3.6151% | Jennifer | 3.1492% | |
| 1983 | Michael | 3.6506% | Jennifer | 3.0377% | |
| 1984 | Michael | 3.6108% | Jennifer | 2.8051% | |
| 1985 | Michael | 3.3742% | Jessica | 2.6200% | |
| 1986 | Michael | 3.3424% | Jessica | 2.8551% | |
| 1987 | Michael | 3.2651% | Jessica | 2.9886% | |
| 1988 | Michael | 3.2043% | Jessica | 2.6811% | |
| 1989 | Michael | 3.1210% | Jessica | 2.4045% | |
| 1990 | Michael | 3.0351% | Jessica | 2.2627% | |
| 1991 | Michael | 2.8687% | Ashley | 2.1393% | |
| 1992 | Michael | 2.5916% | Ashley | 1.9188% | |
| 1993 | Michael | 2.4003% | Jessica | 1.7750% | |
| 1994 | Michael | 2.1825% | Jessica | 1.6481% | |
| 1995 | Michael | 2.0596% | Jessica | 1.4546% | |
| 1996 | Michael | 1.9155% | Emily | 1.3124% | |
| 1997 | Michael | 1.8804% | Emily | 1.3484% | |
| 1998 | Michael | 1.8066% | Emily | 1.3512% | |
| 1999 | Jacob | 1.7346% | Emily | 1.3639% | |
| 2000 | Jacob | 1.6516% | Emily | 1.3015% | |
| 2001 | Jacob | 1.5736% | Emily | 1.2657% | |
| 2002 | Jacob | 1.4797% | Emily | 1.2394% | |
| 2003 | Jacob | 1.4104% | Emily | 1.2813% | |
| 2004 | Jacob | 1.3201% | Emily | 1.2415% | |
| 2005 | Jacob | 1.2148% | Emily | 1.1803% | |
| 2006 | Jacob | 1.1334% | Emily | 1.0244% | |
| 2007 | Jacob | 1.0962% | Emily | 0.9150% | |
| 2008 | Jacob | 1.0363% | Emma | 0.9040% | |
| 2009 | Jacob | 0.9981% | Isabella | 1.1021% | |
| 2010 | Jacob | 1.0770% | Isabella | 1.1698% | |
| 2011 | Jacob | 1.0024% | Sophia | 1.1293% | |
| 2012 | Jacob | 0.9404% | Sophia | 1.1531% | |
| 2013 | Noah | 0.9043% | Sophia | 1.1039% |
While starting out as less so, the boy names used are becoming more and more diverse. Only nine out of every 1,000 boys was named Noah in 2013, which is why we were surprised to hear it is #1.
The popularity of Isabella and Sophia have made it not as various on the girls side, after Emma took over with a "low" percentage in 2008, but there is still a general movement away from top names.
Another way to make the point...
| 1 | Noah | 0.9043% | Sophia | 1.1039% | |
| 2 | Liam | 0.8999% | Emma | 1.0888% | |
| 3 | Jacob | 0.8986% | Olivia | 0.9562% | |
| 4 | Mason | 0.8793% | Isabella | 0.9161% | |
| 5 | William | 0.8246% | Ava | 0.7924% | |
| 6 | Ethan | 0.8062% | Mia | 0.6844% | |
| 7 | Michael | 0.7681% | Emily | 0.6832% | |
| 8 | Alexander | 0.7384% | Abigail | 0.6449% | |
| 9 | Jayden | 0.7326% | Madison | 0.5515% | |
| 10 | Daniel | 0.7068% | Elizabeth | 0.4895% | |
| 8.1588% | 7.9109% |
The total percentages of use of the Top 10 boys and girls in 2013 are almost the exact same percentages of use of 1880's #1s John and Mary alone.
Yay for numbers! And yay for variety!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for leaving a comment on this blog! Please remember that we are respectful of other people's opinions.