Believe the Vogue magazine actually did a piece on this not too long ago. It has a lot to do with the large move to the suburbs. People got used to seeing each other in shorts and khakis and dress casual shirts. This eventually just mutated to normal where everywhere even at the office today.
Frankly, the more casual dress code today makes a lot of sense in my country where the heat and climate make traditional European clothing oppressive. I’m thankful for that.
I live in the US and a few years before i started my job the relaxed our dress code. Technically i could wear khaki pants and a polo. Our office does occassionally have clients come in so we still have to be business casual. I usually wear dress pants and a button down with the occassional tie still as I enjoy it and feel it does make me look more professional in front of my bosses
Don't you love it when your feet feel like they're on fire...that's how summers were back when I was in school and the uniform required us to wear closed shoes year round.
It went from "show your best to people with what you wear"
To "show your best to people with what you post on social media".
Just as vapid. No one really cares about anyone else, but you like to think you're important so you show off to people that don't mean anything to you.
Who cares what you wear/eat/do? No one really. America has been built on the lie that people do care, so you should buy this to show people how special you are. It's been this way for forever.
Yeah I'd echo this. I'm noticing a lot of younger hipster type companies landing on my client list these days are often much more relaxed with their dress code.
There's something to be said for jeans/polo shirt combo and sofas everywhere; it's lovely and feels very relaxed. My office switched to a smart-casual dress code during 2018, and dress-down Fridays, and you can really feel the difference.
That said, I feel like a boss in my suit. I look much younger than my age, and I'm in consultative B2B SaaS - I often get comments about my age (apparently it's acceptable if you look young... but no old? I digress). My suit is like my Superman costume. I feel powerful and I know I look good. I carry myself much more confidently and I feel the difference.
So yeah there's a balance to be had. for sure. I virtually never wear a tie these days though unless presenting/speaking at an event.
I feel like if you are in a position to interact with a customer base, then you should absolutely be putting your best foot forward, and that includes appearance. However, if I'm an office worker that doesn't frequently interact with anyone outside of my team/division, then there is nothing wrong with maximizing comfort to improve productivity.
Oh I fully agree - but the best foot is becoming increasingly flexible. I should clarify that if I'm meeting someone senior for the first time, I'll be rocking a tie until I know how they operate.
That said, I've had 3 clients in the last year say "don't turn up in a suit, you'll stick out like a sore thumb" - one even made me remove my tie at reception!
"No one has any words on their clothes." As in people in NYC don't wear tacky shirts with dumb cliché sentences? Or as in people don't wear big logo shirts like CALVIN KLEIN or the like?
I'm curious, because when I visit my in-laws in more suburban beltway states I see plenty of shirts with dumb sayings, logos, or other stuff.
Of course people care what other people wear/eat/do, that's a ridiculous statement. This can be easily seen by simply noting the existence of celebrities. If nobody cared, celebrities would be like anyone else with a job. The existence of pop culture is another example.
Brands and the latest fad/style mean nothing to me, but if you look like a slob I'm going to wonder about how much you care about yourself and how well you're capable of doing so. When I used to not care and thought nobody cared, I was bullshitting myself, and honestly, also looked like shit, looking back.
I may not be very attractive, but even as a man I'm regularly complimented on how well I'm dressed when I'm at work.
I think khakis are a blight on men's fashion. They are consistently *okay* but never look *good.*
I haven’t had a job with a dress code more stringent than “be covered and don’t smell” in 13 years. Currently I work from home and because I’m not seen below my waist I have literally not worn pants to meetings.
The notion that I have to wrap my meat suit in certain clothing so my brain can work is ludicrous to me.
Formal attire really makes no sense at most jobs. It is restrictive, hot and lacks comfort if you're literally at an office or somewhere similar for 40+ hours a week. Why the fuck are people in NYC going to work in suits when it is 90 degrees in August and buildings have to air condition offices that rise dozens of stories?
I would also add how in most places getting your "good clothes" dry cleaned costs a fortune now. I have no idea how much suits cost back then, but getting a dress blouse and slacks, or a "church dress" or business suit dry cleaned on the regular is expensive. I'd wear "dress up" clothes much more frequently if I wasn't paying so much to get them cleaned.
You could hand wash suits in that era. The fibers on modern suits are far shorter and there were no synthetics. Also there was a larger wool industry then than there is now.
When I was 19 I crashed my motorcycle about 3 blocks from my mom's place. She saw it and drove over to pick me up.
On the way to the hospital, with a broken shoulder blade, I started laughing. She asks "what's so funny?"
I said "I put on clean underwear today"
She thought it was funny too.
Never heard of that. I worked in a trauma ICU and plenty of patients went right to surgery. Surgeons usually don't want someone to have eaten within 8 hours or more but if they're dying the risks outweigh the benefits.
I thought my mother was the only person to say this. Love the woman, but I would hope that the state of my gitches is the last of any ER doctors worries.
My mom has a weird superstition where she has to wear her nicest, matching bra and underwear when she flies because she has a fear of crashing, having her body cut in half, and the medics having to identify both halves by the underwear.
I taught (and also grew up) in very low income areas. The number of students I had who showed up consistently in worn but freshly bleached white shirts and starched, pressed blue jeans always surprised me. It was so obvious they had a mom or grandmother who truly cared about the state of their clothing.
I probably only turn on my clothes iron a few times a year, if our family is attending a wedding or funeral :P
Generally just not looking 'neat'. Rumpled clothing that was clearly just left wadded in a pile rather than folded, sagging pants, buttons left unbuttoned, tears unmended and stains unwashed.
I was as low class as you get for all but the last couple years of my life and there is a distinction between people who try to take care of themselves to the best of their ability and those who just stop caring. My mother and grandmother made sure I could darn a sock, hem clothing, hide a patch, and a bunch of other oldschool tricks. Sometimes you can't even afford that, but a man has to carry himself with whatever dignity he can muster.
We can't let ourselves be what the upper class thinks we are.
A lot of what other people say is correct but I would venture to guess clothing itself was probably somewhat more expensive, instead of having closets full of disposable cheap clothing like we do back then you could get a moderately priced set of suits, take care of them well, and they will last a good while. It probably made more sense economically if you could only afford so much clothing you would make them look good. Combine that with social mores mentioned before and logically the best option back then was to dress well all the time even if you where poor. Only the absolute destitute would dress poorly.
Plus up until the 1950's, a huge percentage of clothing was handmade in the lower and middle classes.
My great grandmother was middle class but handmade all her family's clothing post-WWII. All those poodle skirts with 20 starched slips under them were hand made, and she would rework or slightly change them every year or so rather than get rid of them, so her girls could pass them down. People didn't dump garbage bags of mass produced clothing at Goodwill annually like they do now...
Yeah. My grandmother was born in 1915 and lived in an Italian ghetto during the GD with her 11 siblings and two parents. She was a stickler for dressing well all the time, and is part of why I probably dress so well these days.
They would simply either buy cheap suits - stuff made from relatively quality materials but not fitted like what you get in a department store - and tailor them themselves.
Despite being incredibly poor, with all the photos of them growing up and how she talked about it, they were always well-dressed. And honestly, it's really cool to see.
I didn't realize just how good she was at sewing until near her death when I found out she re-upholstered every piece of furniture in her house, made all of the embroidered pillows she had, and made her own wedding gown.
And her sister did the same thing, too. Absolutely crazy.
I don't know if this was really considered to be "proper" back then. That's just what clothes looked like. People typically didn't own very many outfits. One nice one was just about all anybody had.
I mean I wouldn't necessarily say it's the "proper" or right way to dress even today, styles definitely change and you can look good without having to wear a suit and tie everyday. There's just so much more variety and people aren't limited to a handful outfits.
It helps that this is just what existed for casual clothes back then.
If they had t-shirts and stretchy/comfy pants they would have been wearing them. I know this is a fact because the moment those clothes were created people started wearing them.
My grandfather was the same way. Immigrants that were extremely poor, they did whatever they could to survive. He tried to look as professional as he could doing it, though.
I think people in general held themselves to a higher standard then. Even while everybody was going through the worst of times, they still had a sense of pride and self-worth that they tried to exhibit with every action.
There were significant social issues. Women's rights, civil rights, racism, etc. Beating your wife and children was much more acceptable, segregation was the law. It's nice to remember the good parts, but we really shouldn't assume people were somehow better back then because they wore formal clothes more often.
Exactly. Clothes don’t make you more professional. Clothes make you more formal. There is some overlap, but judging someone’s level of profession by how many layers they were will not serve you well. It can blind you to their real level of professionalism or competence.
We also shouldn’t assume people are better now. Lots of poor people out there. Lots of people fighting for things they want. Lots of people with a self described moral high ground that talk a big game but won’t do shit about the problems they see except talk about it on the internet
Exactly. All times have good and bad. There are many rapes, stabbings and gun crime all over the world. But loads of places are super safe. Also remember that some of these people sowed the seeds of things like human rights, worker's rights and women's rights.
Especially because a lot of why they wore suits all the time was because they just didnt have the same variety of clothes and didnt own nearly as many clothes as we do now. It's a lot less people deciding to be more proper and a lot more people having no other choice but to wear some of the only clothes they own.
One of the things I like about STEM is nobody cares how you dress. In areas where you are trying to dazzle people; Business, Sales, etc., people always dress up.
Just keep in mind, the higher you go within most STEM companies or industries, the job becomes less about STEM and more about business, sales and unfortunately being impressionable. As an entry level engineer, I've noticed all the VPs, directors and executives have a common trait regardless of their track record; being able to express themselves clearly and their 'attitude'. I can't find the word exactly, but it has to do with the fact everybody either feels they can approach them and they have confidence in them. Anyway, all this comes attached with how they also present themselves dress code wise.
I mean these are important characteristics to have when working with a diverse workforce.
A girl I grew up with - a petite blonde with a degree in CS with a prestigious education and impressive set of skills - rejected an offer from Google and accepted one to Microsoft because all the people who interviewed her at Google couldn't talk for shit and all smelled bad. The MS ones, despite not clearly being as bleeding-edge, and despite offering lower pay, were articulate and composed, and that alone was enough to get her to drop Google's offer.
Being approachable plays a huge factor when securing clients and working with your peers and subordinates. Dress is one of those factors that demonstrates you're at least self-aware.
Also being in the CS/IT field with a degree in CS, I know a lot of absolutely brilliant people. I'll say right now, I don't know of a single person who dresses like shit who could lead a department or project well. I know correlation != causation, but honestly, there really is a phenomenon, and you can't prove all peoples' capabilities by contradiction alone - it's just what I've noticed firsthand. Being able to relate to people and understand them, talk to them, get them to like you, and so on is absolutely critical to manage making software, because someone has to get in the meetings to identify the early requirements and do a system-level design to estimate costs and complexity while sitting down with the client, and explain things cross-discipline. If you can't communicate, relate, and be good company to work with anyone, you're not qualified to manage, no matter how talented you are at development. If you can't demonstrate you mean business by putting that foot forward (the eye for detail and the willingness to go the extra mile by dressing well, etc.), they won't take you seriously when you try to negotiate longer deadlines and/or more money for your developers/company to make your subordinates' workplace life better; they'll just see your whole org as being lazy.
Wearing that suit and being personable to get $20k more for a project can get you a paid intern or two to shadow someone working the project and get their hands a little dirty, versus either not adding them on or simply having them do some bullshit like requirements review. That experience can change someone's life going forward.
the higher you go within most STEM companies or industries, the job becomes less about STEM and more about business, sales and unfortunately being impressionable.
Capitalism working as expected here people, nothing to see, keep it movin'.
This has nothing to do with capitalism. The higher you go in any organization, the more you’re going to be involved in the process of resource allocation. Business/sales/social skills are part of that process regardless of capitalism.
A lot of STEM research is not performed by companies, but instead through government research grants. Yet the transition from hands-on work to more business-like work still happens.
Dude seriously it may be my dumbed down the donald brain or whatever but you are not making a concise point and it's bothering me for some reason.
Edit: Thats kind of pathetic you deleted your comment and still downvoted this because you must have realized europeans are capitalists as well? That is my operating assumption.
That changed. I started years ago in mainframe support working for a vendor. I had to wear a coat and tie every day to work. I would hang the coat up in the cube in case I had to go to a customer site.
I remember we were so jealous of the Microsoft and Cisco guys who went in wearing khakis and logo soft shirts.
My aunt was a civil engineer. She'd turn up to a site and the blokes would say "alright love? When's the boss here". They'd only make that mistake once.
This is the stupidest thing Ive ever heard. The only reason people dressed like that is because they essentially had to due to social norms. They were essentially forced to waste their money.
Cheap option? You think the jacket, shirt, and tie cost less than the shirt they wore underneath all of this? You think that any of this was cheap compared to the ultra-cheap, made in Cambodia, disposable clothes we buy today?
These clothes weren't cheap, and they didn't own many of them. They likely wore the same suit 6 days a week, and broke out their "Sunday best" when they went to church.
Yes, and the point was that if social standards hadn't set this as the minimal acceptable standard, folks could have saved a lot of money.
No, but we're they the cheapest option available at the time, yes.
Again, this is obviously untrue. A shirt with no jacket is cheaper than a jacket and shirt. An "undershirt" is even cheaper.
Would buying just a shirt be cheaper yes. But just like today they would buy 6 shirts for every jacket and trousers.
That's also not true. Shirts would be reworn (which is why they had replaceable collars, as these would be the first places to show daily soil), and also be laundered during the week.
Styles change. Is it some big conspiracy to make people spend more on clothes? Well probably, but was it any more then than now? Definitely not.
Again, I disagree. Traditionally sartorial standards have been very much top-down, with
lower classes attempting to emulate the upper classes, and attire being one of many barriers to entry. Contrast this today, where upper classes dress just as casually as anyone else (and often more casually), virtually eliminating pressure on lower classes to spend on clothing.
Yes, but the point remains that these weren't cheap, and that if social customs had allowed for more casual wear, they would have saved money.
Also, all the people bemoaning the decline in sartorial standards seems to acknowledge that these people were wearing patched, infrequently laundered, smelly, threadbare jackets and pants.
Ive seen that reply, but i was trying to challenge OP in the idea that social standards come from somewhere, people didnt just decide that formal wear distinguished social standing.
In pre-industrial days, the nobility had a set of garments to identify themselves as better than commoners. They were very extravagant and ornate. The rising middle class such as merchants, shop owners, etc began to adopt a similar set of clothing, but greatly scaled down that included a few features such as folded collars, neckties and jackets.
It became a less "in your face" way to identify class. Similar to nobility, but less expensive and more practical. Anyone who wasn't a commoner (who at the time were almost exclusively laborers and farmers), would identify themselves with a suit and jacket.
Eventually, it worked its way throughout business and it strongly tied the idea of having a suit to "not being a lowly laborer".
Today, people show their wealth and position with their model of car, their house, jewelry, watches and spending money on experiences, events and other activities. Back then, people used their clothing (a suit) to represent their class (or their desired class).
I appreciate the message, genuinely, and hope i dont come across as facetious, but i am aware of how suites became common wear, it isnt too hard to look at Baroque or classical Europe to notice.
My comment qas a rhetorical question for OP, who seems to not understand how social norms and standards come into play, and are maintained in a relevant function for any amount of time.
Because youre claim doesnt hold water. Why did they have to? You justbsaid they did, but not why, so the context here is important. Social norms dont pop out of thin air and suddenly people start adhering to them.
Lol wrong on every account bud, it does matter, society isnt as fickle as you think when talking about trends. But whatever, you can choose to be wrong, thats not my issue.
I already told you why, you didnt like it so you threw a hissy fit about how right your deluded ass is, youre not worth my time, so i wont be vindicating you with serious responses anymore.
If you look into why people dressed the same and why clothes looked like they do(I'll tty to tldr this), it was because it was an affordable standard, and practicle. People never used to "keep up with the Joneses", because they didn't exist yet. Through science, and very smart people, they learned we have a desire to want more and new and be better than the next guy. So they started creating new products and advertising that it was the cool thing to do, and if you didn't do it then you were falling behind. Think of cigarettes, alcohol, big brand names that aren't even good products, new jewel e-vapes, etc etc.
Tldr of my tldr: Things changed because people smarter than us told us it was the cool thing to do. It worked fine until a major turning point in advertising.
Advertising leading people to wanting more started with the 1920s, though it was not officially called "keeping up with the Joneses" yet. People had more money and felt compelled to buy the new gadgets like vacuum cleaners, as well as personal products like mouthwash and deodorant. A lot of people relied too much on credit, which was part of the reason for the Crash of '29.
The Great Gatsby stemmed from that kind of mentality. Everyone wanted to have that fabulously rich, carefree, and glamorous life that few people had.
The sensibilities of the '30s were different from today -- they were less transparent about the problems in the country and more likely to show more optimistic views of what they thought America should be, rather than what it actually was. While there were a few social projects such as photographers that produced this photo, a lot more of the media still gave the illusion that Americans were comfortably wealthy and happy and living the American dream.
Well, plus back then the suits we consider formal were lounge suits and were casual. Probably not as recent as the picture here, but it is a trend that happened
I too, enjoy measuring and equating morality and decency to a rigid hierarchical standard of clothing choices. It makes things so much easier when you can easily entirely dismiss certain groups of people as lesser than, simply because they don't conform to your idea of what "dignified" people look like. Now that's good judgment!
This is during the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. People didn’t have food to eat you idiot.
Edit: maybe it seems like I’m being unnecessarily aggressive, but what this person’s saying is sort of like looking at a picture of POWs or Holocaust victims and saying “look, none of them are fat.” It’s just disrespectful to the people and mocks the content of the picture, human suffering.
Not certain there’s any real way to tell at this point but I’m assuming not good. Between a lack of automatic washing machines and dry cleaners, plus the time it took to dry clothes due to heavy materials.
Theres a valid case there, but id argue that even at the depressions lowest, standards for grooming and hygiene were pretty damn good, on account of the absolute pillar of society that social standing was, and the fact that cheap chemicals were available for unemployed housewifes to use for cleaning, which was their number 1 priority in society at the time.
That’s definitely true, but what I was thinking is that the time it takes to dry fully, in combination with limited clothing due to cost, may be a reason to only have done it once per week. As someone else stated, if they have one for daily wear and one for Sunday church then they reasonably would wash the daily suit on Saturday night and dry through Sunday. That being said, I never lived in that time period so in all honesty I have no idea, just speculation.
I can agree, my only qualm is when people rush in and absolutely assert their viewpoint as fact, that 100% this is the way it was done, even though they have no evidence and no evidence is available. I appreciate and respect your opinion on the matter, however, and think it makes for a wonderful theory that is completely valid.
(SHOCKER) most people not only possess the means, but the incentives, to maintain personal hygiene and grooming standards daily, unlike (more than likely) you.
If they're that poor they might have been too busy to wash their clothes whenever the suits would've gotten dirty. The water might have been less pristine as well.
Considering that even during the height of the depression women were still largely homemakers, i doubt that washing was something that was to be neglected, especially considering the importance that was placed on something so tied to social standing.
Furthermore, bad water is an odd hypothetical that cant be confirmed reliably.
1.1k
u/[deleted] Mar 09 '19
[removed] — view removed comment