Goldman Sachs, Patagonia, and the Mysteries of “Business Casual” | Hacker News Reader

Goldman Sachs, Patagonia, and the Mysteries of “Business Casual”

newyorker.com

113 pointsmooreds164 comments

This essay is trying to take something pretty simple and extrapolate a whole bunch of deep metaphysical meaning.

The simple thing is this: up until about 25 years ago, investment banks were overwhelmingly populated by Ivy League grads who went to private high schools in the Northeast -- i.e., preppies. This cohort is still way overrepresented on the Street, but in the 80s it was literally like 70% of the warm bodies in bulge-bracket investment banks, hedge funds, and private equity firms. Thus, the fact that people on Wall Street still dress super-preppy is largely a function of the basic "dress like your boss" phenomenon. The people running large firms learned sartorial norms from their bosses in the 90s when they were analysts, and analysts today are learning from them.

Fashion groupthink pervades pretty much every career field. Military officers are keeping the braided leather belt industry in business through their demand for appropriate civilian attire; engineers in SV dress like slobs; people in the apparel industry wear tight black things. The observations in the essay strike me as a bunch of "so what".

At least he quoted Matt Levine, I'll give him that.

What you said is true, but why can that not also mean that power is tied to dress/appearance? There's nothing that deep or metaphysical here, it's pretty straightforward.

> There's nothing that deep or metaphysical here, it's pretty straightforward.

Did you read the article? Here are a few choice passages:

> The importance of the Patagonia vest is that it is both an evolution of the business-casual costume and a reversion to the waistcoat of the ancient three-piece suit. The fleece vest harmonizes with values that have been invested in the suit since its emergence, in the second half of the seventeenth century.

> In its metaphysical proclamation that “all of us know what is and is not appropriate for the workplace,” the memo bespeaks a Babylonian code of unspoken rules. It says that professional conduct is identical to ruling-class savoir-faire, and its manners are too circumspect to say much else.

> The panorama of the scene is a tribute to Ralph Lauren’s prophetic vision: sportswear that’s attached to the traditional garb of monied masculinity by means of it all being stitched together with an invented crest.

To me what the author is getting at relates to "All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players", or the movie American Psycho.

> SV dress like slobs

Fair, but I'd say most (at least more than other industries) people in tech dress how they want. Businesses everywhere are trending toward more casual wear simply because, given the choice, most people would rather dress down. Tech just jumped right to the logical conclusion faster: dress how you want and how you're going to be most productive as long as you're not disrupting others.

Nah, the dress code in SV/Tech is a pair of dark jeans and a plaid button down in muted weft patterns (ie. not a yellow base), no ties, clasp belts (if at all).

As I head to work I have to disagree with these generalization which would include me as part of your beard oil plaid demographic.

I don’t get the down votes, this is basically the national costume of SV/Tech

Hahhhh. In LA tech there's a similar look with a muted pattern print button down, but maybe a short-sleeved work shirt with ditsy prints.

Yeah, no, they don't unless they're established in a position of power.

You can dress as you want in SV as long as it's close to the standard. Try going to work in nicer clothes. You'll get plenty of comments. You're the outsider in the group. People question if you belong.

No, of course you won't be told that you can't dress that way. You'll still feel it. It will still affect you.

People do remark but their reaction is usually positive. I guess it's like any norm-violating thing - if you don't violate with confidence, you're going to look like you just don't know better.

Anecdotal.. But when I first got into the tech industry I went to job interviews (In SF) in a full suit. I was alway told that you want to go to interview "dressed for success".

It wasn't until I dressed down to jeans and a long sleeve button up that I actually got an offer. Honestly, I think no matter what environment you're in you have a better chance of success if you play to your audience a bit.

Yeah, wearing a suit for a tech/game job interview will only hurt your odds and it definitely won't help.

It's rare when someone interviews in a suit, but when they do it comes up in evaluations and not as a positive indicator.

It's hilarious that we've come full circle on that. It was dropped because it was absurd that you'd need to wear a suit in order to be a good engineer especially when you never see a customer. It's equally absurd to suggest that wearing a suit makes you any less qualified- but everyone has seen that one movie where Steve Jobs acts like a douche and hey presto! The entirity of SV ends up exactly as judgey as Wall Street but in exactly the opposite direction.

I've only had one interviewee dress in a full suit and he was the worst candidate I ever interviewed in my life. Couldn't write a line of Java although his resume claimed he had over 12 years of experience using mostly Java. Knew nothing about insertion time of arrays which I threw as a freebie when I realized I wasn't going to hire him anyway.

It could just show that the candidate is out of touch with the tech scene, which might mean that they're not going to do as well as some other candidates. I do agree it discriminates against those who may not be from the area or from a traditional background, but SV is nowhere as "exactly as judgey as Wall Street."

SV as a whole is way more meritocratic and willing to take a chance on smart candidates. Try telling Goldman that you're a hard working candidate who has been studying up econ and finance textbooks on your own and would like an internship.

Lastly, discriminating against someone for NOT wearing a $1k sounds a lot worse than wearing one. You can always dress down but not everyone can dress up!

Well obviously there ARE clear differences between SV and Wallstreet- but largely those barriers come from more concrete places. If you are managing money you generally have regulatory and fiduciary responsibilities. For example, you can't expect to be hired as an accountant without a requisite CPA exams. Whereas there simply aren't the same systems in place for most places in SV. It's worth noting that this is part of the reason SV gets a bad wrap when it moves into regulated areas with the attitude "Let's disrupt"

> SV as a whole is way more meritocratic and willing to take a chance on smart candidates.

That was funny. Have you tried doing standup?

Yes, there are startups that do take those chances. But SV as a whole... not really. It's just as bad on using degrees as a filter as any other place.

> Try telling Goldman that you're a hard working candidate who has been studying up econ and finance textbooks on your own and would like an internship.

Try telling that to a large number of companies in SV and you'll find similar results.

> Lastly, discriminating against someone for NOT wearing a $1k sounds a lot worse than wearing one.

It sounds about equally bad to me. It's not a matter what people can or cannot do about it, it's about the fact that you use completely irrelevant details to guide your decision.

> That was funny. Have you tried doing standup?

What's with the "witty" personal remarks? My comment wasn't directed at anyone personally so I'm not sure why you're trying to make it personal.

There are definitely non-traditional candidates that get hired at large, public SV companies (e.g. FB, GOOG, UBER, etc.), some without even a degree. These guys worked hard to stand out with personal projects and countless hours of self-study and are definitely the exception to the norm, sure, but you can't even find an equivalent of that in investment banking and certainly not at hedge funds or VCs (minus EIRs).

And yes, you 100% find those willing to take a chance on startups. Why is this point just disregarded in your comment above? Give credit to the industry where credit is due.

Lastly, companies also instruct candidates to dress down in their interviewing guideline. Many will go ahead and clarify if you're ever confused and just ask. Sure, interviewers should disregard attire when judging candidates but it's not like it's out of the interviewee's control when it comes to NOT wearing that 3-piece suit.

It's like when a candidate has bad BO. Sure, you don't want to have that unconscious bias, but maybeee, just maybeee, it's also the candidate's fault.

I work for a tech start-up, everyone above me basically has a PhD.

I dress down for work because I don’t want to A) feel out of place and B) draw attention from dressing better than my boss.

My boss typically wears ratty jeans and a t-shirt (often with graphics on them). I opt for nice jeans and a plain colored shirt most days.

Much rather this than have to wear a suit everyday, but I’ve got all sorts of polos, button-downs, and nice khakis I don’t bother to wear (but have worn at previous companies that were larger and more formal).

Doesn’t bother me, but I definitely know I alter my choices to fit with group dynamics.

Supporting data point from 10 years ago in NYC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROlDmux7Tk4

Banker: suit

Consultant: patagonia vest

Tech: not represented

> engineers in SV dress like slobs

I don't think so. /r/malefashionadvice seems to be a popular place among young SV engineers.

In the book "Bill Gates Speaks" there is funny old story about negotiations between Microsoft and IBM.

In the first day of the meetings Bill Gates and others from MS show up wearing casuals while IBM guys come in with black suit and tie. Next day MS guys all have suit and tie while IBM guys are wearing slacks and cotton shirt to blend in.

That remembers me of the one occasion I showed up at meeting with a supplier in shorts and flip-flops. Things is, that was during summer at 30+° C the office dress code up to Directors. And than I forgot the meeting. When I was reminded by outlook it was too late. Still kind of funny to be there in the meeting room and sitting opposite a bunch of guys in suites and ties sweating their a of.

One side of me always wanted to do something like that. I just would have never done it intentionally. But in the end, nobody cared.

This reminds me of all those articles I've read about Silicon Valley hoodie as some sort of way for techies to declare their tribe.

Then I went to Bay Area. And guess what? One really needs a hoodie there! It is the most versatile thing to wear for the local weather. Covers 90% of what you need!

Suit doesn't keep one warm one as warm as vest. I, and many colleagues, often wear a vest in the office because AC makes it too cold otherwise. I think the author here is overthinking it.

That said, I don't know what Wall Street is like these days. Maybe they do consider it some sort of status symbol.

I don't dare ask why you can't just change the A/C!

A/C only has two settings: off and too cold. Some people like too cold though. And a nice vest fixes the problem. I don't actually mind the ambient temperature being low as long as I can keep warm.

I worked in offices where workers can set the ac temperature. At least half the people are always unhappy and the temperature becomes on of the main discussion points. If they're set centrally, at least everyone can complain together instead of complaining about each other.

I want climate control, not aircon. ie - keep a single consistent sodding temperature. As it is we spend the day toggling the aircon on/off depending whether it's currently freezing or too warm in the office.

The consistency with which office aircon can be unfit for purpose is astonishing.

As someone who works in an office with heating and cooling they just oscillate wildly - you end with a office that heats or cools seemingly at random, or one area fighting another as one corner tries to heat like crazy as the other blows cold air across the others thermostat.

What fixes frozen fingers?

Doing something that requires moving them. If you're furiously typing obscene code comments your fingers will be warm. If you're mindlessly clicking the "approve" button on the PRs your fingers will be cold.

My hands are almost always cold in the winter here (NE Ohio) and I've found a couple of things that help with that while still letting me get work done.

Fingerless mittens are one option, and while they don't cover your actual fingers, just warming your hands up helps a lot. I can still type and use a trackpad just fine with them.

If you don't need to use a touch-sensitive device with them, the really thin, lightweight gloves that are meant to be a layer underneath a heavier pair actually work great. I can work in them as normal and only give up a little bit of my normal typing speed; not enough to be a hindrance when doing software development since typing speed isn't the bottleneck anyway.

My personal reason is the much higher environmental cost of that option.

Two challenges: building AC systems are often surprisingly poorly designed and installed, especially if your building has ever had internal redesigns, so you’re picking which areas are either too hot or cold rather than getting the entire place the same temperature. Developers tend not to be high-status enough to get the building set for them — that tends to be the suit-wearing executive suite or, at many places, sales.

The other factor to consider is that people who are too cold can layer up but someone who’s too hot doesn’t have an option other than working from home.

One thing which increased environmental concerns is leading to is reconsidering both of these given how expensive AC is. Getting people to dress appropriately for the season would lead to a big reduction in peak electrical load in much of the U.S. In some cities like San Diego where distribution capacity is constrained that’s the difference between having brownouts or not.

AC is the reason why I think solar power can do wonders even if it's nowhere near being able to meet all the demand.

Especially in dry climates like the American southwest, solar produces the most energy during the exact same hours when air conditioners need the most power. Build an excess of solar capacity, and you can probably prevent all brownouts. This would be a major benefit even for people who don't care about climate change.

I would expect the solar peak to be an hour or two earlier than the peak of AC demand.

You can turn the panels slightly to the west or fiddle with other angles if you're concerned more about aligning peak hours than producing the maximum amount of energy possible.

It's not a perfect alignment but it's close enough: the key point is that you can generate the power without long-distance distribution requirements (which is a source of waste in the current model) with a considerable comfort margin.

In the example I mentioned, San Diego has (IIRC) three long-distance interconnects and building more is extremely difficult because the routes are generally full of homeowners who will sue you. You don't need to power every AC unit in San Diego completely off of solar the entire day — just enough to keep the total draw well below the capacity limits of that network avoids the prospect of brownouts or blackouts, and it would cut the number of times they have to pay industrial customers to reduce usage for a few hours.

> The other factor to consider is that people who are too cold can layer up but someone who’s too hot doesn’t have an option other than working from home.

While true in the abstract, the real reason why most office buildings are "cold" is because indoor climate regulations are based on empirical thermal comfort models that were developed in the 1960s, and thus mostly based on the metabolic rates of men instead of women.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2741

That's basically the same point from a different angle: most set-points were created to be comfortable for men in suits, in an era where business attire was a requirement for office-workers in most fields.

I very much doubt that the people responsible for temperature control are aware of the empirical thermal comfort models from 1960. My prediction is that almost none of them have any idea that the study exist or what it says.

I contrast I suspect those people to be fully aware of the cost of running the temperature control system and if the CEO/manager of the company want it to be right now warmer or colder in their room. The resulting temperature is then the balance between costs and the willingness to make the CEO/manager happy.

There is even an Instagram account poking fun at the phenomena of bros in vests in NYC - https://www.instagram.com/midtownuniform I now see it everywhere :)

This "Midtown Uniform" is as versatile and practical as the hoodie in the bay area, but for a colder climate.

In the UK, I find the majority of offices too cold.

AC tempatures generally cover large areas and are controlled by the older managers who often like it colder than the yongers boots on the ground. This in turn means we end up wearing hoodies or cardigans indoor.

I actually worked for a bank, with a dress code, that was so cold I wore 3 hoodies. As a tech contractor I wear whatever I want, but I was questioned about it several times. Pretty bizarre really.

I work on Wall St (metaphorically of course) and people wear vests because it’s cold, windy, and you look good wearing one. They’re also light and sleaveless, so they’re easy to take off and they also make your arms look good.

It's subjective, but I've really got to disagree with you that vests look good. They're pretty hard to pull off, IMO.

"virtuous delts" I got a kick out of that line in the article

> Suit doesn't keep one warm one as warm as vest

Sure it does. A have a tweed sports jacket that could keep me warm in the arctic. Even my regular wool blend jackets are plenty in colder months or freezing offices.

I don't think AC in the Bay Area is much colder than AC anywhere else.

I like the article and totally get it, agree with it to the extent that agreeing makes sense here.

I do want to defend patagucci real quick. These puffies are legitimately incredible over a wide range of temps. I can comfortably wear my down hoodie from 25F to 65F. At 25F I probably have another layer depending on conditions, and at 65F I'm probably looking to get rid of it if possible, but in either case it's manageable. These bros might be wearing it for culture, but the product is high quality.

Patagonia appears to be a great company. The founder and company seem legitimately interested in fair wages and treatment of all humans involved in the process whether they're in the fields, on the floor, or in the office. They appear to be serious about fair treatment of animals and the environment. Repairability and longevity of the products is a priority as well.

I think the comparison to clothing with BROOKLYN printed on it in some distant nation is unfair, the owner named the company with the intention of saying "this is what you would wear in that environment", which he spent a lot of time in. Conditions vary wildly, clothing will get beat up. Will most of it get there? No. Will most of it end up in some corporate office and never see adverse weather, probably.

I feel guilty wearing their stuff (and I buy all of it on their past-season 50% off sales, their mailing list is literally worth it) because it does scream a certain kind of preppy person. But at the same time, the products I have from them (not tshirts and caps, but legit technical garments) are the best I own, full stop.

Would have been nice to see the author at least nod towards that instead of smearing them with Wall Street.

At least of the people I know, Patagonia is more considered an upscale outdoors brand rather than patagucci or fratagonia. Depends on the use case and contact with those stereotypes. It is legitimately good gear (at least for my level of intensity of outdoor activities).

It's both. They make some serious outdoor gear, some more casual wear, it is high quality, but it's also Patagucci. I've seen people who take it on week long hikes (as you said, it's high end outdoor wear), and you see bros wearing it downtown.

Around here is all The North Face over Patagonia.

TNF doesn't have as good of a reputation for serious outdoor equipment. They're more focused on casual clothing in the style of serious outdoor gear.

TNF makes serious mountaineering gear. I mean gear for people trekking Lhotse or Annapurna or Aconcagua. I've had one of their sleeping bags too. Not exactly a Western Mountaineering bag but it was quite respectable to a relatively serious backpacker.

That said, I don't wear their clothing so I can't comment on their apparel lines.

They have a limited amount of very good apparel. (I have one of their jackets for winter hiking which replaced a prior TNF I probably had for 20 years or so.)

With the exception of some boutique manufacturers (Western Mountaineering, Feathered Friends, etc.) all of the outdoor companies tend to lean on serious outdoor adventuring for their brand but, especially as they grow, they're more and more about selling clothes for people to wear around the city.

Some of them do maintain their original roots. Others not so much.

The North Face absolutely makes serious outdoor gear (in addition to casual/street stuff). Their Summit Series line is very high quality.

EDIT: Grammar.

They make serious gear, but it's mainly their mountaineering line.

Yeah, I'd much sooner consider the likes of Best Made Co. as "preppy" outdoor gear than Patagonia.

The contrast is quite stark.

Have never heard of this brand, where are they popular?

Recommendation to read Let My People Go Surfing: The Education of a Reluctant Businessman:

https://www.amazon.com/Let-People-Surfing-Education-Business...

Review:

https://www-editor.npr.org/books/titles/138392461/let-my-peo...

> A familial company like ours runs on trust rather than authoritarian rule. Maybe a few people take advantage of our flextime and our "let my people go surfing" policy, but none of our best employees would want to work in a company that didn't have that trust.

I recently went to a talk by Warren Robinett, creator of Adventure for the Atari 2600. One of the audience questions was, "what was the work environment like at Atari under Nolan Bushnell?"

He discussed how little structure there was at Atari. His boss thought Adventure was a waste of time, but he was allowed to choose how he spent his time, and he chose to work on it anyways. At a stricter company, the game would never have been made.

Though, he did specifically mention he felt that the guy who skipped out to go surfing every Wednesday was kind of abusing the freedom.

There's a reason some brands take off and it's generally because before fashion they have a legitimate value proposition. Patagonia used to be a great item (still is). That great item turned into a messaging symbol that the owner knew how to spot a great item, and in turn it's been adopted by someone who wants to message that they know how to spot a great item.

I had to laugh at the J. Press anecdote at the end. I actually remember when Casual Fridays came in. It basically meant that sales/marketing/business types didn't need to wear jackets and ties (if not suits) on Friday any longer. People in engineering tended not to wear ties and when "official" casual Friday's came in, the response was to dress down another notch--including dressing down further on Fridays--to the point where the CEO made it known that the dressing down had gone a bit too far.

It was around the same time that IBMers switched from suits to the now ubiquitous polo shirts at trade shows. Cue great sigh of relief from booth staffers at the myriad of other companies who could now follow suit [pun not intended].

The CEO gave everyone a dressing down regarding dressing down?

Sounds like they didn't dress it up.

> dressing down further on Fridays

I remember some engineers went from polos and khakis M-Thu to board shorts and birkenstocks Fridays. Some people can go overboard.

Yes. That's exactly what happened and it was a bridge too far for an east coast computer company.

"Casual Fridays" brings terrible memories. A subcontracting company where we were casual at the customers premises (to blend in) suit and tie at our own offices where no customer could see us. And of course the Friday thing that was just another burden, since it required specific style in the middle.

Dress-down / casual days seem to be promoted by people who are really into fashion, so that they can show off their new threads. They don't seem to realise or care that for many people clothes are just a boring practicality like toothpaste or umbrellas.

Only having a polarised wardrobe ( work or dog-walking ) I had nothing to fit that fashionable niche, so I decided to just wear the usual trousers / shirt / tie on Fridays and ignored the quizzical looks from the T-shirt&jeans brigade.

What a loss in an otherwise nearly informative article, it’s all based on how to look yet next to none of the images were of what to wear

Of course tech companies have their own unwritten dress codes, which is also unfair to people. If you wore a suit to a Google office you’d a get similar reaction of ‘this person doesn’t get it’ as you would wearing the wrong thing at Goldman Sachs. The situation hasn’t really improved in terms of making expectations plainly understood.

Yes, in fact I used to do that when I worked at Google and people would call security on me. The same thing happened at Facebook

Are you being sarcastic? I didn’t claim they’d call security - just that you’d be judged for not knowing the (unwritten, which is the problem) norms.

Nope, this was a factual account of my experience

Yeah if I saw someone wandering around in a suit at Apple I'd assume it was a hardware vendor who somehow broke free from his handlers and was snooping for secrets.

Those were pretty much the only people you'd see hanging around in suits.

Even at Apple, there are a few people who observe Formal Fridays, and some of them quite extravagantly so.

Yeah... I'm not going to confuse a guy wearing an formal ascot for a visiting engineer.

If you wore a suit to a Google office you’d a get similar reaction of ‘this person doesn’t get it’ as you would wearing the wrong thing at Goldman Sachs.

Unless you are Vint Cerf of course.

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0606/opinions-rich-karlga...

The Forbes question confirms that he’s breaking some kind of rule.

Its not a good counter example because he’s got the social clout to break the rules - knowing when you can do that is also part of the unfairly unwritten rules.

You’ve said unfair twice now. What specifically is unfair about a culture that I experience as “where what works for you; we care what you can do not what you wear.”

If you start in tech on Monday, you’ll know by Tuesday what people wear and by next Friday you’ll probably have enough giveaways to never need to buy a t-shirt or hoodie again.

> What specifically is unfair about a culture that I experience as “where what works for you; we care what you can do not what you wear.”

But they do care! If you wear a suit they'll think you're not technical like them. A big part of Google culture originally (when it was unusual) was wearing hoodies and jeans rather than chinos and shirts. If you didn't fit in with that you made yourself look like an outsider.

And the unfair bit is that it's not written down anywhere. You just have to implicitly know it. If you don't have family or friends in the industry you won't know it, they won't tell you, and so you won't fit in.

I've seen tech people scoff at people in suits, and look down at them. Have you never seen that?

The unfair thing isn’t that it’s not written down though. It’s that it’s implicitly “wear whatever you want, except don’t look like old fashioned corporate America” but claims to be “wear whatever”.

Like the other poster mentioned about hardware vendors at Apple wearing suits, it’s probably not personal it’s just stereotypes at play. Google has a particular penchant for “watch out for tailgating” and expects all employees to challenge folks without badges. It’s not common to see other Google engineers in anything particularly formal, so it becomes a clear “hmm, I should make sure that person has a badge” or alternatively “hey security person, I don’t think they have a badge”.

You've definitely had this shift from chinos/button-down shirts/boat shoes business casual (i.e. more or less traditional East Coast preppy) to jeans/hoodies/t-shirts/sneakers among much of the tech set at least outside of settings like meeting with customers.

I used to pretty much always wear the business casual "uniform" but a few years ago I found myself going a bit more casual at the more developer-oriented events I would attend because I was starting to feel overdressed.

Maybe I’m an outlier, but I actually like the unwritten rules better than the written ones. Every interview I’ve ever had I make a point to ask what would be expected. At my MBA program (yes, I’m one of those guys) we had to wear slacks and a button down to class every day. And having worked for NYC firms there are different social expectations. So my question is usually phrased like this: “Hey, I’ve worked in situations where a tie was required and where a tie would get one ostracized. Can you give me a quick heads up on normal office attire?”

This usual ends up with some decent back and forth and inevitably I send them the following Oatmeal comic. [0]

My point is that if you play it right, you can turn awkward social norms to your advantage. You just have to be willing to ask.

[0] https://theoatmeal.com/pl/minor_differences5/suit

I think that's human culture, not tech culture. Skaters and musicians and preppies and punks and goths and snowboarders and devout religious groups all have their own norms and behavioral and clothing signaling and most of it is not written down.

If I showed up to a half-pipe in full wedding garb or to a wedding in skater garb, people would reasonably give me weird looks.

Being able to appropriately adapt to different situations is a needed life skill. “In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current.” —Thomas Jefferson

The benefit I see in tech is you can wear whatever “weird” clothes you want and be accepted and given a chance to prove you can do the job much more than in most workplaces. Try showing up to a law firm or investment bank in flip flops and shorts vs showing up in a suit in tech. You’ll get a lot farther in the latter than the former. To me, that's fair (or at least wildly more fair.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/fashion/matt-jacobson-fac...

reminds of of something similar at fb with matt jacobson, who dresses well:

"And as one of the oldest and best-dressed executives at the company, he still looks completely out of place on Facebook’s campus. “I get stopped by security all the time because they think I am a visitor,” he said. “Security will come up to me, ask to see my visitor’s badge and say, ‘Who are you?’ ”"

My dress code when interviewing at any company: never dress better than the CEO's profile photo on the company website.

It depends on the position and depends on the company/locale. It's very possible in Silicon Valley that you get interviewers judging engineering candidates because they dressed up too much. [Have to have that culture fit, you know.] At most companies, and certainly for non-engineering roles, it almost certainly doesn't hurt to dress up a bit and is considered normal.

At most companies, the CEO's profile picture will have be in a suit, so the heuristic still works.

Exactly.

If the CEO dresses in a T-shirt and jeans, there's a _very_ high chance everyone else would be dressing the same or less formal.

Two of my colleagues (both developers) had a phase where they unironically showed up in a tailored suit to work. I still don't know why, I mean I guess the one guy had more of a CTO role but the other one was just a regular developer like me, and the suits didn't make them come off as more important - just more uncomfortable.

Any time I've seen this, the person was interviewing elsewhere and just didn't want to bother bringing an extra set of clothes and changing.

Some fellas at work started Formal Fridays. They like the excuse to dress up.

If you're uncomfortable in a suit then you've just got a badly tailored suit.

> I still don't know why

Have you considered that they may enjoy dressing nicely?

A tailored suit with a well made dress shirt is literally one of the most comfortable things you can wear. Plus you look really good.

Ugh, I disagree. I‘m an investment banker, I wear tailored suits to work every day. Suits are uncomfortable and high maintenance. Give me jeans and a comfortable hoodie any day of the week!

I don't know what to tell you, you're doing something horribly wrong then.

High maintenance I'll give you (and expensive), but I non of the jeans I own are as comfortable as a nice pair of suit pants and despite the fact that no one would care if I wore a hoodie to work I still wear a dress shirt basically every day because it's just so much nicer.

TBH I don't find jeans terribly comfortable and don't wear them very much. In my opinion--and maybe it's just because I'm used to it--the traditional Friday casual Khaki/Button-down shirt hits a sweet spot for office wear.

I would agree that a well-made dress shirt that fits well is super comfortable. They are just very hard to come by.

I doubt they're very hard to come by but they'll be expensive. I've had shirts tailored in Asia but I admittedly don't bother with tailored clothing on a day to day basis.

If you had your suit tailored and it's uncomfortable then it's defective - take it back to the tailor and explain where it's not comfortable and they'll adjust it for you.

The most comfortable suit is still more uncomfortable than a t-shirt and shorts.

If suits and dress shirts were comfortable, people would go to bed wearing them. The fact that people wear t-shirts to bed instead should tell you which one is actually more comfortable.

What about tailored jeans and sweatshirt. That may be the ultimate in comfort

Anecdotally, the comfort of tailored/fitted apparel can vary based on your body composition.

This is as someone who used to weigh around 255 and now weighs around 170.

The more fit you are, the more comfy fitted/tailored apparel tends to be.

If you are atypically shaped due to various fat deposits, tailored clothing becomes more difficult to get just right in order to not pinch/restrict you in all the wrong places.

I think calling it "unfair" is, well, unfair. There are thousands of "unwritten" rules in this world that exist for a bunch of reasons. If you don't pick up on obvious social cues, then you'd likely feel some sort of way about the result, and you'd likely be more aware next time to avoid that feeling. That process is necessary in this world. It sharpens you. It forces you to grow and adapt and learn new skills.

Here's a concrete example.

When you interview at Google, I think you're told 'dress as you're comfortable'. But really that's bad advice, as if you're most comfortable in a suit and wear that you're going to be getting it wrong.

It would be more fair if they said 'most people wear jeans and hoodies'. 'Wear whatever you want' is what they want to be but not the reality. 'Wear a hoodie' is the reality.

>you're going to be getting it wrong

Genuinely curious. Are you saying that if you wear a suit to an interview at Google, you're going to be automatically dinged and not hired because of what you're wearing? I admittedly don't interview candidates for engineering positions at my company, but I can't imagine marking someone down for wearing a suit even though you basically never see anyone in a suit day-to-day in the office.

Have you never heard people joke about and dismiss people in the tech industry because they're wearing suits? I have.

I don't think there's literally a box on the feedback form that says 'were they dressed appropriately', but I think it's part of the impression people will form of you and will judge you by.

I have certainly heard the term "suits" used dismissively and generically in the same unthinking way as "pointy haired boss" etc. gets used.

But, no, I don't think I've ever heard someone comment about an individual being "overdressed" in a negative way. But then I don't work in Silicon Valley.

I have literally listened to a senior VP laugh about a candidate after the interviews were done, during the hire/no hire discussion, for wearing a suit to an interview, and ultimately we turned the candidate down.

In that specific case the candidate might not have been hired, anyway, they were pretty marginal. But it is 100% a real thing that Bay Area tech people will ding you for wearing a suit to an interview.

The whole point of culture is that its not "obvious" if you're outside it. Hence the last several decades of discussion around corporate culture, institutional racism, etc. Calling it obvious makes you seem kind of tone-deaf and privileged (and this is coming from someone who is conservative-leaning).

I hardly think it's unfair because suits cost money, and the more money you put into the suit the more people can tell. In many tech places people are okay with you wearing the free company t-shirt and khakis. You could look like $50 and be accepted.

That's widening the gate as far as you can.

I work for a Fortune 100 company. I've never seen anyone from CEO/president down to whoever wearing anything more fancy than jeans and a button down shirt. During the summer nearly all 10,000 employees on campus are wearing shorts and t-shirts everyday. I can't imagine wearing a suit, or even a tie, to work.

Surely you mean button up shirts, shirts with a placket and buttons closing the front and not button down, shirts with collars that have buttons. Button down is a subset of button up. Button up is the opposite of pullover

Button-down shirts are a staple of business casual wear.

I always had a rule of turning down interviews at a company on Fridays. For me, onsite interviews are a chance to see what the company is like ie. stiff or relaxed. Dress-down/casual Friday masquerades that.

Anyway, I always practised dress-up Friday. I always wear my loudest flowery Hawaiian shirt I can find on Fridays. Every Friday.

For you, the day my Hawaiian shirt graced our workplace was the most important day of your life. For me, it was Friday.

(I wear mine on Tuesdays.)

> Anyway, I always practised dress-up Friday.

I don't mind Casual Fridays, but I wish we also had Suit Mondays (or even better, Formal Mondays with morning jackets & dinner dress). Dressing down is fun, but so is dressing up.

And honestly, I don't think fashion has come up with a better look than white tie: waistcoat, bow tie, tailcoat. Flatters the figure rather more than a hoody and sneakers.

I'm a very tall man. Any piece of business clothing I buy ends up coming from a big or tall, costing an extra arm and a leg. I'll never be able to purchase from a thrift store, and any suit I've ever tried to buy costs enough to make my eyes water - I'll never be able to get anything from any discount rack. Formal Mondays sounds like my version of expensive hell.

Patterson is a stellar wordsmith. I still miss his advice column in Slate. The commenters saying this doesn't distinguish finance (eg. "fashion groupthink pervades pretty much every career field") are missing the point. The thesis is not that bankers all dress the same - it's that they don't, and this is somehow an integral part of their job.

> “Goldman’s dress code is that you should dress the way you’re supposed to dress at Goldman. If you have to ask, etc. The difference between a middling banker and a great one is this sort of tacit knowledge.”

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so disturbing.

I used to work at a big bank, and would just wear nice dress shirt/dress pants. Whenever I saw a "vest" guy I would think 1) you guys really all look the same, and 2) aren't your arms cold and your torso hot?

I now work at a SV fintech, and it's impossible to figure out what to wear to meetings. Do I wear biz causal? Shirt tucked or untucked? Jeans and t-shirt? Sneakers, loafers, leather sneakers? Can I wear shorts? Does it matter if you're in SF or NYC?

The dress code is way harder than in banking.

This was the topic of The Submarine

paulgraham.com/submarine.html

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 not up to the task of measuring the ratio of adjectives to words in this article, but I'm certain it is significantly higher than most content we see these days. I think there was a point in the article beyond the author's literary exercise, but after wading through a few paragraphs the drag was so high I became stuck.

This is The New Yorker. It's not news, it's social commentary.

> 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).

Wall Streeters and SF tech types famously have tons of money, but spend all their time working, so they may favour status symbol purchases over time-consuming experiences.

Definitely les than the 90s but there are a lot more rich people so you can try to sell them shit like the worlds most expensive whiskey cube maker or notebook or whatever

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

I have a single vest which is solemnly used in spring/autumn while it’s too cold for only a suit jacket but not too cold to carry a winter jacket or similar. As the vest is significantly more lightweight and smaller it’s worth it if you are on travel (think airplanes or public transport).

I have a number of them--mostly giveaways (including a Patagonia one which is better-made than most of my others). I wear them all the time in cooler months. Either as a layering option or standalone if I'm just a bit too cold--as is often the case either around my house or in an unevenly heated office or other indoor facility.

It's less bulky than putting on a sweater or big fleece and is much easier to pack.

My office mate at Stanford used to say the same thing, fwiw. I’ve got a good retort: grilling in San Francisco.

As people said, usually you layer these under say a ski jacket to keep your core warmer without losing arm mobility. In the amusing case of grilling, I actually don’t want a garment picking up the smoke/smells either.

For one thing, you can wear one indoors at your desk without looking like you're wearing a jacket at your desk.

Yeah. In the scheme of things, Patagonia is not a luxury clothing brand. It does tend to be pricier than a lot of other outdoor clothing/gear brands but their stuff is well-made and generally looks good. I own quite a bit of it, albeit mostly purchased from one of their outlets.

While there is a lot of talk about "experiences" being the new "things", it's worth noting that there are more kinds of supercars - the ultimate rich person's toy[1] - being produced now than at any period.

[1] except of course superyachts - of which all of the 5 largest and 8 out of the 10 largest have been built since 2006.

My guess is in those social circles it is like old money, all about self-justification anf filtering from "outsiders" not within their approved privledge gatekeepers. If they choose our nonmainstream X it is cultured - if they choose mainstream Y it is tacky.

This article brought to you by Pottery Barn.

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.

MORE PEOPLE ARE WEARING VESTS. IT MIGHT HAVE TO DO WITH POWER STRUCTURES. END ARTICLE.

You're right, much better.

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.

Yeah a bunch of snobby jerks that went to Wesleyan.

Is this article based on an April fools joke?

Patagonia. Named after a region where nobody wears the brand.

Reminds me of cheap textile made in the Far East with some kind of generic blurb about New York on it.

Much like Decathlon's brands: Kalenji (running gear named after a high altitude Kenyan tribe, the Kalenjin); Quechua (outdoor gear named after Peruvian Andes peoples); neither place ever likely to use those products.

What makes you think that?

The world is smaller than people think - I don't see anything unlikely about this sort of outdoor gear making it to Kenya or Peru.

Ironically there are tons of people wearing Quechua where the actual Quechua live since it's affordable and good. Which is pretty astounding as Decathlon doesn't even have stores in Argentina.

I stand corrected!

Just like the all the university sweats that are so popular. Some of those that wears it are wearing it for fashion reason, and not because they have attended classes there.

Named after a rugged but beautiful place.

To be fair the company exists to make the sort of clothes you actually would wear if you where going to Patagonia.

I spent one month in Patagonia this year. My Patagonia gear held up extremely well while trekking, climbing a mountain, and sleeping in tents and cars.

Yea, as much as it's easy to make fun of fashion conscious bankers wearing Patagonia as a status symbol, let's not forget that their products are also really good at what they're supposed to be used for.

We have the Kathmandu brand down under

People do actually wear Patagonia gear there, it's just that there are cheaper alternatives.

> People

--> Rich tourists

You know there's a substantial middle class in the Argentine and Chilean Patagonia right?

Named after a region where the company's founder adventured down to in a Econoline van and made a first ascent up Cerro Fitzroy, which is part of the mountain range shown in the company's logo. It would be worth taking a read on his history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yvon_Chouinard, the man is an absolute giant in rock climbing and alpinism.

Did the New Yorker just quote the New York Times that quoted an April 1st joke tweet [0] about Patagonia no longer making vests for bankers?

Is this a comedy piece?

[0] https://twitter.com/binnaskim/status/1112727524675592192?s=1...

But this was not April Fools: https://twitter.com/binnaskim/status/1112800424543780864

Reply on news.ycombinator.com