5 ms·

Once in a rare while we come upon such a lavishly adjective-laden expression of literary peacockery wrapped in the unassuming guise of a common news item. I'm

• Lazare 7y ago
  I mean, it was in the New Yorker. That's what the do. I enjoyed it, but it's not everyone's cup of tea. Also: > wrapped in the unassuming guise of a common news item. It...really wasn't. It was presented as a snarky piece about people wearing the "midtown uniform", which it was.
• nl 7y ago
  This is The New Yorker. It's not news, it's social commentary.
  • foldingmoney 7y ago
    This article brought to you by Pottery Barn.
  • paganel 7y ago
    > it's social commentary. It's curious that rich people (at least some of them) still obsess over brands and relatively expensive stuff that can be purchased, my feeling was that for the past 5 years or so the cultural zeitgeist (for lack of a better expression) was to focus on "experiences" (for those that have the material means to do so) and generally speaking to treat the purchase of stuff for the sole sake of buying stuff as "tacky" (again, for lack of a better expression). I admit that I may be wrong on this one, either way, I do feel that consumerism has dialed down a bit compared to the '90s and the early 2000s (the pre-2008 times).
    • Lazare 7y ago
      Keep in mind that much of the article is discussing a Patagonia-brand fleece vest. It retails for $79, and it actually is a useful accessory when going on long hikes in the Andes or whatever. So yes, there is more of a focus on experience over luxury goods, and one of the ways you can see that is in the elite wearing relatively cheap clothes that (hopefully) imply that the wearer does cool expensive things. So I think you're right; while there's still a focus on brands, the brands being discussed are relatively reasonably priced. For Wall Street, I guess that counts as progress. :)
      • ses1984 7y ago
        I have really never been understood the utility of such a vest. If you want to stay warm, wouldn't you want to reduce loss of heat by air moving in and out through the armpit holes? There are literally zero times I would want this over a) the same thing with sleeves or b) no vest at all.
        • jacobolus 7y ago
          A vest is (a) not as hot as a jacket made from similar materials, (b) easier to add layers over the top of, (c) less restrictive of arm movement, (d) cheaper, (e) packs smaller. If a jacket leaves the wearer feeling too hot (e.g. because they are doing something active like hiking up a hill), but just a shirt leaves him/her feeling too cold, then a vest would be a natural middle option. I don’t wear vests, but if I spent a lot of time outdoors in medium-cold climates, I can certainly imagine using one. Have you worn this type of vest before? You might be surprised how much warmer it is vs. just a shirt.
        • dagw 7y ago
          If you want to stay warm, wouldn't you want to reduce loss of heat by air moving in and out through the armpit holes? Vests are designed to be worn with/under some sort of outer jacket to provide an extra layer of insulation, without adding an extra 'layer' of sleeves that will just be too bulky or hinder mobility. Another useful aspect is that they pack up a lot smaller and are thus easier to shove into the bottom of bag when you're not wearing them.
• dboshardy 7y ago
  MORE PEOPLE ARE WEARING VESTS. IT MIGHT HAVE TO DO WITH POWER STRUCTURES. END ARTICLE. You're right, much better.
• Dirlewanger 7y ago
  The New Yorker (and virtually every other NYC media outlet) is staffed with young arrogant liberals that get uncomfortable when you ask how they can afford to live there (hint: wealthy boomer parents). Harboring contempt for the financial district downtown is baked into their ethos.
  • chrisdhoover 7y ago
    Yeah a bunch of snobby jerks that went to Wesleyan.