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, an

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.