Hacker News Reader

I can't disagree more.

But when you're in a position of power you also have a responsibility not to be a dick.

Say's who? The greatest minds of our day challenge status quo's, not accept them. "Dress" has historically been a badge of status, which has historically been inherited. I think the big "F U" that Mark is trying to portray (much like Jobs) is that his meritocracy wins.

Bureaucrats wear suits, Meritocrats wear hoodies.

So if the bankers started wearing hoodies they'll become Meritocratic?

Portraying 'not wearing a suit' as challenging the status quo is a bit of an exaggeration. Maybe Gandhi challenged the status quo with his choice of outfit, but a billionaire turning up to a meeting in a suit is hardly sticking it to the man.

I think it works both ways incidentally- if the banker is coming to your place of work, and you all wear hoodies and shorts, he should make an effort to dress casually too.

A banker would never wear a hoodie to work because that just isn't something that you do. Banking by its nature is a profession based on who you know, where you went to school, and conforming to whatever social norms rule the day. In 1910, that meant you wore a topcoat and hat with a pocketwatch; 1960, it meant a double breasted suit and fedora; in 2012, a fancy single breasted suit with tie.

Wearing casual clothing to these sorts of meetings sends a clear signal -- "Fuck you, I'm the guy with the power here."

Zuckerberg can do this because in reality, what's the downside to him? If Facebook crashes and burns completely, he'll be a billionaire before age 30 who "lost it all" with just a couple hundred million in the bank.

Injecting formality into a construction site I can see: Steel-toed boots prevent smashed feet, hard hats stop brain damage, tool belts keep the floor/ground clear from obstacles.

What does a suit confer other than "you have to wear this because you do"? What are they, five years old?

People respect symbols of authority and perceive you as a bigshot.

I wear a suit for work when I meet with the various luminaries that I need to deal with (maybe 2-3 times a month). You get more respect. Waitresses are more attentive, and people listen to you more.

It's interesting you say this. I've been experimenting with/without suits, on and off at my current place of work (an investment bank front office). What I've noticed is this:

1) If you're careful, you can get away with wearing jeans and trainers (I often wear black 501s with nike low nike cross trainers, and various casual shirts - no one really notices/cares, especially if you're in software).

2) Suits and neat shirt/trousers tend to be the "default" and perhaps signal safety/predictability more than commanding respect (which doesn't make sense since everyone wears suits around here, and everyone doesn't command everyone, so it's a shallow heuristic to use when making quick calls on people - I know some dumb people who wear suits, and smart ones who don't).

3) I've incidentally worn very casual stuff (jeans, no suit) for interviews and then actually worn suit/tie/etc on the job later, i.e. more out of curiosity/wanting to, than obedience. I do think in some ways they can be nicer to wear. If you go more into studying design concepts, you start seeing some good elements in play within the standard template of what constitutes a suit (shirt, blazer, tie, boots, cufflinks, etc). Is there a better alternative? Not sure - I loved Steve Job's outfit too, though.

Imagine the Barrack Obama whitehouse photo with him in a hoodie. It wouldn't be unthinkable for him to do this, but I'm not sure it would communicate the right message to the general public (again, perhaps it's about projecting the idea of safety, stability, predictability, etc). In that sense, suits are a good communication facilitator.

A lot of jackasses wear suits, sure, but a lot of jackasses use iPhones, for example too. It doesn't mean they're a bad thing. The bigger problem perhaps with wearing a suit is that there are so many people wearing them now, many of them doing it because other people do it, rather than because they have some pure conviction to do so, that it has become a "red ocean" strategy, which naturally goes against the flow of innovation.

I don't really see the big deal about suits. I look good in them, and would wear them more but for the cost of acquiring and maintaining them.

Many folks, particularly in IT, dress like muppets. We have one guy who routinely wears track suits in the office, for example. It doesn't give off a good impression.

Maybe Gandhi challenged the status quo with his choice of outfit, but a billionaire turning up to a meeting in a suit is hardly sticking it to the man.

What if the billionaire forces the bankers to take 1/3 of their usual cut? Is that sticking it to the man? I say it is.

So if the bankers started wearing hoodies they'll become Meritocratic?

No, but the point is a Meritocrat doesn't need image to portray his worth. The ideals of both are arguably opposites of each other:

Meritocracy - intelligence, credentials, education

Bureaucracy - authority, delegation, judgement

(meaning, those who display the greatest abilities in those areas are delegated to be responsible for governing others)

It's very easy to show bureaucratic abilities by use of imagery, symbols, and artifacts. Meritocracy can't be bought. In the end, it depends on what you, as an individual, value.

The true test (if all this even matters) will be to see how he carries himself if Facebook ever needs investor money for its survival.

But when you're in a position of power you also have a responsibility not to be a dick.

Wearing casual dress != being a dick.

Once Steve Jobs made it the last 10+ years or so he spent it in a black shirt and jeans.

Another point in the article mentions... "I think that he has to realize he's bringing investors in as a new constituency right now, and I think he's got to show them the respect that they deserve because he's asking them for their money."

However, this isn't some internet startup that doesn't have revenue yet. This is a company that's making buckets of money already. So in this case I think they really need to dance to his tune and they are going to take the lowered rate because he can go down the street and another bank is going to be jumping at the deal.

Are investment bankers really upset? Or are these just the reporters saying these things? Strange.

If you are literally offended by somebody wearing sensible clothes to the point where you would call them "rude" on that basis alone, I would posit that we're actually discussing your mental state, not anything wrong with their clothing per se.

Yes, you might wear a suit when you want to kiss up to someone. But being gravely offended by somebody not actively kissing up to you is much less becoming of a mature adult than the act of not wearing a suit. The clothes do not hurt you, they do not deprive you of anything — the only problem is that they don't flatter you. But expecting flattery is uncouth, even if you are accustomed to being flattered.

> The person in the position of power has a moral obligation not to make everyone else feel uncomfortable or stupid.

That's a very interesting point, and I had not considered it from that angle. Not sure if it changes my mind or not, but thanks for the insight.

But when you're in a position of power you also have a responsibility not to be a dick.

Is that so? When has that ever been the case in real life?

I don't understand how a person can be a dick for how they dress. The concept does not make sense to me. It doesn't seem theoretically possible.

You have much to learn my friend, much.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YQ1CPTNsj3A/TZ8SRBRCUNI/AAAAAAAABs...

What about the way they hold their fingers?

Seems like it needs intent, not just a particular shape. If you give everybody the finger because you mean to be offensive, that's offensive. But if you do it because you just find it more comfortable somehow, nobody should care (although I'm sure they will).

True that. When you're in a meeting where the majority of people wear suits and are serious, you'll be considered the dick if you're wearing a hoodie and are grinning like you just won the lottery :-). It doesn't even have to do with business - people can be offended at a personal level, too.

Maybe the reason he wore those clothes was different - he feels lucky/confident in them, they were the only thing in his closet at the time or something. Or maybe he just doesn't pay much attention to dressing code (if the clothes are comfortable, why not wear them)...

I think that's an interesting insight, and in general I agree with you.

However, I can't help but be amused at the thought of some stuffy prick having his nose tweaked by a billionaire in a hoodie.

More particularly, your comment reminded me of Dilbert [1] re abuse of power, when Wally asks, "What might be the other reasons to have power?"

1: http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1997-08-04/

But when you're in a position of power you also have a responsibility not to be a dick.

In general, that's a great idea and I agree. But Wall Street types mostly don't believe in that responsibility. So it's nice to see someone turn the tables on them.

> I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that I think he's being rude and arrogant.

Sure. Wearing what he feels like wearing, something which isn't indecent and what he has been wearing on a regular basis for a long, long time is being rude and arrogant.

/s

You think the bankers generally follow that rule?