No easy answer since most garments > 100 years ago were home-made. But I can confidently assert without data that the number of man-hours of labor in the average closet is substantially up.
I'd be surprised if we had that many man-hours, let alone 3 or 4 times that (this is a single piece of clothing), in our wardrobes. Conservatively assuming a man-hour in the wardrobe costs us $5 (while people are often paid less, their salaries are also but one expense), you'd need at least around $1500 to equal just that shirt.
I'm talking 100 years ago, not 1000. We've had mechanized fabric production for > 300 years.
From your document, weaving and spinning are > 85% of the labor in your shirt. Those would be almost 0% for a shirt made 100 years ago. And those wouldn't be the only steps mechanized 100 years ago.
the more obvious recent example is that we employ more bank tellers than we did before the ATM, because the ATM reduced the amount of labor hours needed to operate a bank branch and made a lot of marginal bank branches pencil out.
Only the recent trend of online banking services is really actually turning this around.
garment makers chosen because of this recent discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43450515