No? I think that housing prices as a percentage of income have increased since then and are trending worse for younger generations, which a quick google suggests is true:

https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Harvard_JCH...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/real-es...

The late 90s (just before this study ends) were also one of the last periods of meaningful wage growth.

So combined with, again, a lack of consideration about things like rising healthcare costs, it’s difficult to view this study as relevant or meaningful. And especially when the data ends before the now two largest downturns since the Great Depression.

I don't think anyone's claiming anything about the relative spending on food and housing, nor that it has any bearing on the matter under discussion - I think the claim is that total spending on "essential needs" has remained fairly high and has not become "much better." According to the article you linked, while food, housing, and clothing are now only about 50% of your budget instead of 80%, there's also about 20% on transportation costs, which didn't show up in the 1900 figure. I think those also count as "essential needs." Things are better than in the early 1900s, but not by very much.