5 ms·

Interesting history of the suit. But while the article sees a future for the suit, to me the suit is history. Suits once denoted upper class, and sumptuary laws

• alex_c 16y ago
  I don't necessarily disagree, but that seems like a pretty Valley-centric view to me - or at least, limited to industries where appearances are less important than results.
• p_nathan 16y ago
  I don't know of any larger-business CEOs besides Jobs who dresses casually. Certainly the execs(mid-size company) in my company always have a suit on in public/semi-public appearances. Could you cite your assertions please?
• fecklessyouth 16y ago
  I hope the last two clothing items were jokes. Though what you wear is somewhat a matter of taste, suits far outpace sweats and t-shirts in portraying a man's body. A nipped waist, slightly padded shoulders, and straight legs will always make a better impression.
  • lsc 16y ago
    sure, it makes you look more physically attractive; nobody is arguing with that. But, looking nice is not always an advantage. Given no other information, are you going to hire the programmer who obviously puts a lot of effort into his appearance? or the programmer who does not? I mean, I know people who answer both ways. Some people think looking nice is a sign of respect... but others assume that if you put that much effort into your appearance you must be covering up for incompetence.
    • fecklessyouth 16y ago
      "Employee" is probably a better example than "programmer." This topic seems dedicated to workwear as a whole, not a specific field. Nevertheless, how we present ourselves is inevitably influenced by what other people think of us. The amount of influence differs by situation. Though a programmer might dress in jeans and a T-shirt, he surely combs his hair. Sure, our perceptions of appropriate dress change by the decade or so. But there's a difference between lowered expectations of what's appropriate (business casual instead of business) and no expectation. I think the later is what you're suggesting, that opinions of us are less influenced by our dress. The former may be happening; but as others have stated, all fashion is cyclical. The later is, in the absolute sense, impossible. In the relative sense, it may sway, just like fashion, but we will always dress based on what other people will think, even if its to a lesser degree.
      • lsc 16y ago
        >"Employee" is probably a better example than "programmer." This topic seems dedicated to workwear as a whole, not a specific field. No, because expectations of appropriate dress vary radically by field. If you dress appropriately for a nightclub hostess job and then try to, say, get a job as a financial advisor or an enterprise software salesperson, you are likely doing yourself a disservice, even if the nightclub hostess getup is more flattering. >Sure, our perceptions of appropriate dress change by the decade or so. But there's a difference between lowered expectations of what's appropriate (business casual instead of business) and no expectation. I think the later is what you're suggesting, that opinions of us are less influenced by our dress. I'm suggesting that there are some situations where looking less attractive is more likely to help you obtain a positive business result. The obvious examples are the trades, but I think there are certain, ah, stereotypes about programmers and sysadmins that also have a similar effect. I mean, not always; but there are certain companies where a programmer showing up in a suit would be seen as almost as weird as an electrician showing up in a nice silk 3 piece. >Though a programmer might dress in jeans and a T-shirt, he surely combs his hair. I find this statement to be so far outside my experiences and expectations that I wonder... are you American?
• mkn 16y ago
  Thorstein Veblen, in The Theory of the Leisure Class, has an insight that I think you've missed: Suits make lower-class labor work impossible for the wearer, and are therefore intrinsically a signal of higher class. That sumptuary laws are gone is not a weakening of the class distinction implied by suits, but a demonstration of their effectiveness. >>No one aspires to that. Jeans, sweats and t-shirts are the new class separator, indicating which of us have earned the freedom from having to wear suits. The key thing here is that there is a difference between aspiration and ability. Clothes unsuitable for labor merely indicate a commitment to an information occupation. Suits, expensive clothes that look good and are unsuitable for labor, also indicate a social commitment to the organization, a social commitment necessary to advance within the ranks. In many, if not most, software firms, the way to success is upward through management. For a while, it was through stock options or stock grants. In the latter two scenarios, no social commitment was necessary, so come-as-you-are became the norm. Come-as-you-are seems to survive for two other reasons. Firstly, the class distinction between partners & the board vs the line-level programmers has to do with ownership, and no amount of coding, whether performed in jeans or in a suit, can help you over that barrier within the organization. Secondly and consequently, the route across that social divide, for the line-level programmer, is via a start-up effort undertaken as a side project, outside the social structure of the worker's organization. These trends are not heading in a direction that portends an infinite ocean of denim and sweats, but rather for a re-emergence of business casual or even smart casual in the workplace for programmers, and again for suits in the managing establishment. Suits are a signifier that someone is adept at controlling other humans and getting them to perform work for them. The ability to get computers to do useful (capital-capturing) work has upended this temporarily. As this algorithmic market commoditizes, or at least as the exploitable niches fill, the ability to control people instead of machines will become more important again. Even without commoditization and niche-capture, the fitness advantage of being able to control and manage an organization still portends a crystallization of an owning class, complete with ownership regalia, the suit. The short of it is this: If you program for another organization and don't have an amazing side-project, you might consider the slacks-and-jacket smart casual look if you want to move ahead.
  • donaldc 16y ago
    These trends are not heading in a direction that portends an infinite ocean of denim and sweats, but rather for a re-emergence of business casual or even smart casual in the workplace for programmers, and again for suits in the managing establishment. Says you. You must be exposed to very different workplaces than me. I've yet to work at a place in the last ten years where any of suits, business casual, or smart casual is practiced, or encouraged. Pretty much, normal street clothes are perfectly fine.
• adestefan 16y ago
  Your $100 jeans and t-shirt with some witty Internet meme differentiate you from the gardener in real work clothes.
  • deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
• icegreentea 16y ago
  Everything goes in cycles. Especially fashion. I can tell you right now that amongst my university friends, there's definitely a feeling of 'man, suit's are awesome'. No doubt fueled by Mad Men. I mean, we'll both want jobs where we can show up in shorts and flip flops whenever we want, but we also kinda want jobs where we get to wear suits (as long as we get enough pay so the suits don't bankrupt us). Cause suits make you look -awesome-. And doing anything in a suit just makes you feel kinda giddy and special.
  • fecklessyouth 16y ago
    Absolutely. The same phase occurred in the 70s, until the power suit was brought back.
• deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]