4 ms·

It signals that they have money... and/or high conscientiousness—you can fake that with enough money, to e.g. pay for someone to entirely take care of having yo

It signals that they have money... and/or high conscientiousness—you can fake that with enough money, to e.g. pay for someone to entirely take care of having your clothes clean and ready on-time and waiting right where you need them, of course, but for anyone other than the "employ multiple full-time people as 'help'"-rich, fine clothes require more care and attention from the wearer than a hoodie and jeans. Wearing fine clothes that fit well, and not looking uncomfortable in them, also signals that effort (not just money—though, again, at the higher end of the scale, as with everything else, money can replace effort) was put into finding that good fit, and that one puts in the extra work to dress well often enough to feel at-ease being so dressed. It signals awareness that people treat the well-dressed better than the poorly-dressed, and both willingness and ability to follow through on that knowledge. Then, of course, yes, clothes signal group membership. So do $120 hoodies and $400 Scandanavian high-performance light outdoor jackets and $90 hiking pants and $150 selvedge high-weight jeans and $350 impractical, throwback work boots, and shit, those aren't even the expensive side of tech-nerd signal-wear. Of course the people buying those are doing it because the items are "high quality", not to fit in with and signal among their peers. Clearly.

Mrnimbus112 5y ago
You sounds like an incredible tool who cares about the wrong things in life
bluefirebrand 5y ago
> Wearing fine clothes that fit well, and not looking uncomfortable in them, also signals that effort (not just money..) Having the time to put in that effort requires some amount of money. To afford to have someone take care of the kids for a bit, or to pay someone to work on your car on the weekend instead of fixing it yourself. It takes money to have the free time so you can spend the time clothes shopping instead of doing life maintenance.
- handrous 5y ago
  Yes—as with everything else one may wish to do, it's easier to dress well the more money you have, and it's very hard for single parents with two jobs to do it (again, like everything else). That's true.
  - bluefirebrand 5y ago
    Yes. So placing higher value on people based on how they dress is a garbage practice used to profile people with poorer backgrounds and limit their social mobility, keep them out of better jobs, keep them out of upwardly mobile roles like management. It's "learn to play the fashion game or get fucked" We would be so much better off without that crap.
    - handrous 5y ago
      Sure, but we the same applies to any other skill or practice. Like learning to program. Or bathing. Or showing up to work on time (a much, much bigger problem than, say, not owning a suit, for the actually-poor—ask them, or their employers, and you'll get an earful). In the case of management, specifically, I'd think if someone's reached the point where they have a realistic shot at a management position, but haven't figured out they need to dress for it, and also found the time & willpower to do so, that's signaling working as intended. Any of several causes for that would be a good reason to think twice about putting that person in management. Meanwhile, anyone who cares can dress plenty well enough to start in a lower-level management position by hitting Goodwill or eBay and dropping low-hundreds of dollars, which isn't nothing (I'm aware—I'm familiar with tracking the costs of groceries while shopping to make sure you won't overdraft, or only getting 5 gallons of gas because you can't afford more until next week, et c.), but that's a pretty damn low admissions price compared to, IDK, college, which is usually also required to take the easy route to management. There's a pretty big gap between middle-management dressy, and having enough bespoke suits to wear a different one every weekday and switch them out seasonally. The former's not exactly a high bar, compared to all kinds of other costs and time-sinks that are associated with being employable. Once you're "in" then yeah, maybe costs increase somewhat if you want to improve your chances of both being effective and moving up, but at that point you're... in management, so that shouldn't be some kind of huge hurdle anymore.
- 6510 5y ago
  Clothing, second hand, is pretty much worthless. It also offers a much larger selection compared to just than what is hip today (uhh all black? white cloths forbidden?) which allows you to create your own style for next to nothing. Just ask the article of clothing if its you and listen to what it says. A guy once pointed around the room and described what 20 people were wearing, where they bought it, what it costs, how fashionable he considered it. I ask him what I was wearing. He said: I have no idea! Its so wrong that it works, its more refined than everything in the room. I cant imagine spending more than 10 euro on the set (shoes aside)
  - handrous 5y ago
    > I cant imagine spending more than 10 euro on the set (shoes aside) Indeed, for men, shoes are the hardest part to work around on a budget. Cheap looks cheap (and tends to fall apart really fast) and used is rarely actually cheap unless they're so beat up that, at best, you can manage smart-casual out of them. You can save money buying used, but "cheap" is practically unattainable. The materials (leather, mostly) are just too expensive for actually-cheap men's shoes to be A Thing, at least for mainstream looks which basically all require leather shoes above a very-casual register. Even alternative fashions usually find a way for it to be hard to get away with cheap shoes, it seems (much "street" fashion, for example) usually subbing in expensive casual styles (pricey sneaker, or conspicuous-consumption work or military boot styles) for the oxford or loafer or whatever.

Mrnimbus112 5y ago

You sounds like an incredible tool who cares about the wrong things in life

bluefirebrand 5y ago

> Wearing fine clothes that fit well, and not looking uncomfortable in them, also signals that effort (not just money..) Having the time to put in that effort requires some amount of money. To afford to have someone take care of the kids for a bit, or to pay someone to work on your car on the weekend instead of fixing it yourself. It takes money to have the free time so you can spend the time clothes shopping instead of doing life maintenance.

handrous 5y ago
Yes—as with everything else one may wish to do, it's easier to dress well the more money you have, and it's very hard for single parents with two jobs to do it (again, like everything else). That's true.
- bluefirebrand 5y ago
  Yes. So placing higher value on people based on how they dress is a garbage practice used to profile people with poorer backgrounds and limit their social mobility, keep them out of better jobs, keep them out of upwardly mobile roles like management. It's "learn to play the fashion game or get fucked" We would be so much better off without that crap.
  - handrous 5y ago
    Sure, but we the same applies to any other skill or practice. Like learning to program. Or bathing. Or showing up to work on time (a much, much bigger problem than, say, not owning a suit, for the actually-poor—ask them, or their employers, and you'll get an earful). In the case of management, specifically, I'd think if someone's reached the point where they have a realistic shot at a management position, but haven't figured out they need to dress for it, and also found the time & willpower to do so, that's signaling working as intended. Any of several causes for that would be a good reason to think twice about putting that person in management. Meanwhile, anyone who cares can dress plenty well enough to start in a lower-level management position by hitting Goodwill or eBay and dropping low-hundreds of dollars, which isn't nothing (I'm aware—I'm familiar with tracking the costs of groceries while shopping to make sure you won't overdraft, or only getting 5 gallons of gas because you can't afford more until next week, et c.), but that's a pretty damn low admissions price compared to, IDK, college, which is usually also required to take the easy route to management. There's a pretty big gap between middle-management dressy, and having enough bespoke suits to wear a different one every weekday and switch them out seasonally. The former's not exactly a high bar, compared to all kinds of other costs and time-sinks that are associated with being employable. Once you're "in" then yeah, maybe costs increase somewhat if you want to improve your chances of both being effective and moving up, but at that point you're... in management, so that shouldn't be some kind of huge hurdle anymore.
6510 5y ago
Clothing, second hand, is pretty much worthless. It also offers a much larger selection compared to just than what is hip today (uhh all black? white cloths forbidden?) which allows you to create your own style for next to nothing. Just ask the article of clothing if its you and listen to what it says. A guy once pointed around the room and described what 20 people were wearing, where they bought it, what it costs, how fashionable he considered it. I ask him what I was wearing. He said: I have no idea! Its so wrong that it works, its more refined than everything in the room. I cant imagine spending more than 10 euro on the set (shoes aside)
- handrous 5y ago
  > I cant imagine spending more than 10 euro on the set (shoes aside) Indeed, for men, shoes are the hardest part to work around on a budget. Cheap looks cheap (and tends to fall apart really fast) and used is rarely actually cheap unless they're so beat up that, at best, you can manage smart-casual out of them. You can save money buying used, but "cheap" is practically unattainable. The materials (leather, mostly) are just too expensive for actually-cheap men's shoes to be A Thing, at least for mainstream looks which basically all require leather shoes above a very-casual register. Even alternative fashions usually find a way for it to be hard to get away with cheap shoes, it seems (much "street" fashion, for example) usually subbing in expensive casual styles (pricey sneaker, or conspicuous-consumption work or military boot styles) for the oxford or loafer or whatever.