Why Americans dress so casually
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
> The only thing I will say is that there's still a bit of a gender hangover, where women are singled out for wearing clothing normally associated with men.
Wait, what? This is the opposite of how it is. It was a big deal when that celebrity kid wore a dress[3]. Women wearing denim, an oxford shirt, or sneakers is not even something people would notice as "off". Black jeans are practically a uniform for women in NYC.
> I don’t know if it will happen, let alone sometime soon, but self-cleaning fabrics, I think that will be a thing.
Not exactly self-cleaning, but merino and synthetic technical fabric is very hype currently.
[1]: https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&q=apc+lookbook [2]: http://www.theonion.com/article/iowa-fashion-week-begins-315... [3]: http://www.etonline.com/news/165398_jaden_smith_wears_dress_...
Formal wear has basically evolved into a costume that is used for specific events (weddings, funerals, and the like). It's hard to imagine someone dressing like that every day, with the complicated layers of nonfunctional and expensive items. Maybe that was the point.
Casual wear has largely evolved into clothing easier to mass produce and fit close-enough off a shelf. Paired with a general decrease in cost and clothing is less of an investment than it once was.
I also think that using lookbook models as examples of casual dress is going to be excessive outside of fashion hubs. Their clothes are tailored well, layered appropriately with appealing, seasonally appropriate color schemes -- outside of a well curated closet, these aren't going to be looks that you'll pull out every day. And if your wardrobe is well selected, you probably are dressing a little more than casually.
Also, I would say that skinny jeans are a pretty gender agnostic article of clothing now. And again, I think location comes into play. You're going to see a disproportionate number of women wearing sundresses/skirts in the south etc. I do think that in larger cities this is much less of a thing.
When I hear Americans talk about business casual, it's generally khakis and button down shirts, except when you're in Silicon Valley. But in Netherland, jeans, t-shirt and sneakers (or army boots, in my case) are totally normal in the office. This was the case when I worked in small software companies, but currently I work at a major bank, and it's no different (except sandals, flip-flops and shorts do seem to be a step too far). The business side is a bit more formal, but the IT side is completely casual. Probably because everybody is looking at Silicon Valley.
The employees wore chinos and a polo or sport shirts most days. Fridays was jeans instead of chinos but still a collared shirt.
Managers wore slacks and dress shirts every day. Directors/VPs and up wore a suit every day but would dress down to slacks and dress shirts on Fridays sometimes.
I swear somebody had to have been sending emails about it. I never saw some VPs in suits and some not, everyone seemed to dress down to the same level on the same day.
But at a different department, the manager of the same level always wears a hoodie, and probably either jeans or cargo pants. I can't really imagine him in anything else.
The CEO/MDs wear suits and it goes down from there.
Sweatpants are indeed a lot less common here. My (very sporty) sister wore mostly sweatpants during her teens and student days, but she's an exception, and she switched to nicer clothes (including jeans) when she got married.
Same here, I'm also the one with army boots (Danish model as they are a bit more causual looking although when winter arrives it is clear they are Danish, -hard soles makes them almost slippery compared to the "native" boots around here it seems.)
Casual button downs can be wire tucked or untucked IMHO while dress shirts need to be tucked usually.
Technically a dress shirt is the more formal type of shirt that is designed to be worn tucked in and with a tie, therefore it has longer tails and comes in various collar sizes.
I suspect that literally speaking, "hemd" would be the Dutch translation of "shirt".
Wondering how you would react to 'button ups'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polo_shirt
EDIT: although you're right that button down collars did start in polo.
When I look at pictures of NYC, I always see people walking in suits down the streets. It's bizzare.
A lot of people moving here from France lately. They really stand out in their clothing habits :)
But who am I kidding with this injured pride, french really dress really damn well.
Having worked in a similar hot place (but probably not as dry) I can say the tolerance is smaller on 'mild temperature' places
My fiancee, who is from the West Coast, jokes that if you're wearing a suit in the South, you probably have an important job -- if you're wearing a suit in Seattle, you probably work at the mall.
There's a socioeconomic U-shape to the clothing curve for employed people where lower status jobs have dress codes to indicate their lack of individuality and ease of replaceability and interchangeability, and general lack of humanity or humane treatment via strict and formal uniforms. Then it declines into "cubical land" where a local minima is probably the "jeans friday". Then the curve goes back up where there are strong labor markets (programmers in SV, former Apple CEOs who like turtlenecks, etc) and slovenly attire is a very public display of how difficult replacement would be.
Something else to keep in mind is the unemployment rate (the real labor force participation rate, not the made up propaganda figures) is about half. And labor saving home appliances mean the half who are not working are no longer standing at a sink doing dishes or hand washing laundry. And a minimal level of social transfer payments mean the unemployed have some money and therefore something to be seen doing. In "the bad old days" the bums down by the river were not well dressed, but they were unseen. Now a days you will be seeing the unemployed half of the population, and they have not necessarily begun to dress up. This has certain trend setting issues. Given "people of walmart" photos I don't feel the need to dress up when I torture myself by shopping at walmart, and that caving in, applied to a very large scale, ends up with very few people dressing up to shop at walmart.
If you're my boss, and you turn into that kind of a control freak, I may cooperate for the moment, but my resume will be on the street by this evening.
Personally I'd think that visit would be more effective if he sees that the programmers are not dressy business people but people hired for their brains, but clearly some disagree.
Amazingly, the computer doesn't care whether you code it in an office, in a café, or at home in your PJs.
Other people tend to care though.
Pants are dangerous?
Weather: During the 20th century Americans have increasingly moved west and south to warmer climates (go back 100 years and most Americans lived in the cooler climates in the north east). Loose khakis, t-shirt and sandals is much more comfortable in warm weather.
Obesity: Very few were obese back when suits were common. It's not comfortable anymore to tuck your shirt in the pants once the belly pushes outwards (personal experience).
Technology: Washers and dryers became common throughout the 20th century. Washing clothes used to be time consuming but the washer and dryer meant that it's now easy to wash your jeans and t-shirts. Meanwhile it's still a hassle to have your suit dry cleaned and your shirts pressed or ironed.
Working around some BMI 40+ and its not like there is much choice for professional looking clothing that looks good. Get to the 50+ and it just gets worse.
I just am amazed at how far back they traced the change in attitudes. Still I remember that day when IBM (contracting) announced its change in dress code and suddenly jeans were in. I think this was 95 or 96?
Do you think that is a bad thing?
I really don't care.
Edit: I'm sitting in a very nice office!
All of which you need as a software developer.
I've never seen any correlation.
If you care about how someone dresses when you hire them, odds are you're using bad criteria for your decisions. That's not to say that you can't get great people, but you're probably paying over the odds for them, if "dresses nicely" is one of your factors for selection.
I think I will hire better if I dont care about dress code - I think odds are better that I will find a good hire if one of my criteria is not "do they own a suit or a dress".
Funnily enough, all the programmers I know who "don't care about dress" also will say that they have negative perceptions of people turning up in a suit for a programming job.
They care about dress, they just want people to conform to a very casual dress code. Which would be fine, if they admitted to it. Instead, they say they "don't care about dress".
That said, it's a very reliable indicator on almost all situations, the most important exception being during an employment interview; it's extremely noisy then.
or that they expect to be around people who (act as if they) care about dress.
I disagree with this.
Showing up in "a suit", in most cases, isn't caring about dress, it's thinking that a required formality of dress is necessary. People that care about clothes, and are fashion enthusiasts, will show up in Thom Browne, CdG, Engineered Garments, etc. - or even just basic Club Monaco-type stuff if they're don't have a giant amount of disposable income.
While adherence to arbitrary fashion formality levels may be an indicator of unawareness, an interest in fashion seems incredibly unrelated to programming skill, unless the programmer is expected to be solely interested in programming - in which case, they should also rule out runners, rock climbers, guitarists, etc.
It's people that care about how others are dressed that are the problem. What you call "thinking that a formality of dress is necessary". We disagree on terminology.
"Looking the part" can be a lot worse than just clothes, though. Because most programmers are young white men, HR people, even women, even when they care about hiring more women and minorities, still tend to hire people who look the part, meaning more young white men.
Maybe getting rid of all pressure and expectations to "look the part" would be necessary to finally get rid of these subtler, subconscious forms of sexism and discrimination.
Also, we demand hipster beer to be delivered to our desks on Friday afternoon.
In my experience, that's not true. Many do care, but a significant part of it is caring about giving the impression that they don't care, coupled with the need to not stray outside the uniform. many places say they don't have a dress code, but that's usually short-hand for "you need to look like us to work here".
I was just sitting in a restaurant in France the other day and an american was present one table over sporting a baseball cap indoors. I realise it's my issue, but this really bothered me for some reason.
I now work for the bank that bought out that bank and work from home currently in jeans and a hoodie, much more befitting my status.
OK, here's a potential prediction that could bring about "uniforms"...
If we end up with some kind of ubiquitous augmented reality, we may end up styling ourselves like you would a game avatar, and even "themeing" everyone around us. In that world, it might make more sense to just all wear comfy grey onezies all day.
Of course all predictions like this are hilariously off... it'll probably be more like the entire earth bizarrely becomes a comfortable 23C and everyone just walks around in socks.
Even in these comments, there are observations contrasting more formal NYC with more casual southern and west coast cities. Makes sense to me. Even in slightly more formal southern towns like Dallas and Atlanta, there is a lot of new growth and new transplants from the north and east.
Thankfully, I can wear my steel-toe boots, Carharts and flannel to work, and nobody cares. Why would they? I'm a programmer that sits in my office most of the time, and, except for trade-shows, any interactions I have with customers are on the phone or email.
I also don't see the point in spending the money on another pair of "fancy" boots, which are generally not very well constructed, or fitted to my feet, when I have these[1], which are tough-as-nails and reasonably good-looking if you keep them clean and use a little polish once in a while.
Yeah, they are kevlar-lined chainsaw boots - I actually use a chainsaw on a regular basis, and having a real pair of safety boots is pretty much the absolute minimum level of safety equipment. Even if you know what you are doing and are careful, you can fetch up on something and the saw can kick back. Chainsaw cuts are extremely nasty.
[1] http://www.labonville.com/Labonville-Kevlar-1-Low-Heel-Chain...
No one. But lots of people like getting "gussied" up in non-functional, expensive, _comfortable_ clothes, even if it is not necessary? It may be stupid and superficial and is no doubt a serious character flaw on my part, but looking good makes me feel good, and feeling good makes me happy and productive.