# Towards the hegemony of "business casual"



## Serenus (Jun 19, 2009)

Pardon if someone else has beat me to this, but I thought this was an interesting read over my morning tea.

https://www.slate.com/blogs/busines...r_standardized_office_casual_in_american.html

I'm too young to remember the notorious pamphlet, but here seems to be one key to the puzzle of where we are today and why.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Serenus said:


> Pardon if someone else has beat me to this, but I thought this was an interesting read over my morning tea.
> 
> https://www.slate.com/blogs/busines...r_standardized_office_casual_in_american.html
> 
> I'm too young to remember the notorious pamphlet, but here seems to be one key to the puzzle of where we are today and why.


Thank you for posting, very interesting article. Having started working in 1982 (part-time intern, before they used the word intern) and,then, full time in '85, I would argue that Levi's had less or, maybe, nothing to do with engendering business casual (and the article states that and the company acknowledges it - so no great insight on my part), but they certainly saw a trend and a need (the trend away from suits and the need to define business casual) and quite successfully jumped on it. I worked for a company in the mid 1990s where Dockers and and OCBD were practically the uniform for casual Friday.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

In finance in the late 1980s, I was working for an investment bank and it was a big, and I mean big, deal when we were first allowed to wear dress chinos (true dress chinos - practically, everyone got the same or similar pair from Brooks Brothers [5 blocks away]) a shirt, tie, leather loafers (not bucks) and blue blazer on Friday in the summers only. That was the first crack in the all-suit armor and things stayed like that until the early 90s and, then, things started changing rapidly.


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

Fraser Tartan said:


>


Dat belt buckle :eek2:



Fading Fast said:


> In finance in the late 1980s, I was working for an investment bank and it was a big, and I mean big, deal when we were first allowed to wear dress chinos (true dress chinos - practically, everyone got the same or similar pair from Brooks Brothers [5 blocks away]) a shirt, tie, leather loafers (not bucks) and blue blazer on Friday in the summers only. That was the first crack in the all-suit armor and things stayed like that until the early 90s and, then, things started changing rapidly.


...and now, people think I'm "dressed up" when I wear that every day lol


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Fading Fast said:


> In finance in the late 1980s, I was working for an investment bank and it was a big, and I mean big, deal when we were first allowed to wear dress chinos (true dress chinos - practically, everyone got the same or similar pair from Brooks Brothers [5 blocks away]) a shirt, tie, leather loafers (not bucks) and blue blazer on Friday in the summers only. That was the first crack in the all-suit armor and things stayed like that until the early 90s and, then, things started changing rapidly.


Quite. In London legal practice, few firms now require suit and tie all the time (although people are expected to have it available for client meetings, court, etc.). This is very different from even 10 years ago. What runs contrary to the mentality on these boards is most people don't care about tailored clothing, but will dress in jacket and tie when social convention demands it. Remove the social pressure, and is it any surprise that many people choose to dress in less expensive and easier to maintain clothes (objective advantages) which they perceive to be more comfortable (subjective)?

Personally, I'm now very relaxed about this (having, admittedly, at one stage cared A LOT:icon_peaceplease. The sky hasn't fallen in and people still seem to do a professional job. And, as I said in another thread, I actually far prefer the aesthetics of well-executed casual clothes to someone doing the bare minimum to comply with a suit and tie dress code.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

orange fury said:


> Dat belt buckle :eek2:
> 
> ...and now, people think I'm "dressed up" when I wear that every day lol


OF, I am just old enough to have worked in finance in NYC in the 1980s when a lot of Wall Street was still dressing Trad and firms still had strict, unwritten (no one would have thought to have to write them into a policy) rules for attire.

I had one boss who believed suits, shirts and ties came from Brooks Brothers, J.Press or Gorsarts Clothes (a discount version of BB and JPress, in that they used the same manufactures, but sold them out of a second floor, no-frills walk up store, but they were as serious about Trad clothing and tailoring as Brooks or Press) and shoes were Alden or Johnson and Murphy (they were a much better shoe then) - period. Anything else was heresy.

When I worked for the Union Bank of Switzerland's Investment Bank, they only "allowed" blue or white dress shirts for the first few years I was there.

It was stunning in the 1990s to see how fast it all unraveled.


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

Balfour said:


> ... Remove the social pressure, and is it any surprise that many people choose to dress in less expensive and easier to maintain clothes (objective advantages) which they perceive to be more comfortable (subjective)?


I'm glad you wrote the phrase which I have underlined; I very much doubt that business casual is more comfortable.


Fading Fast said:


> It was stunning in the 1990s to see how fast it all unraveled.


I am sure your chronology is right; why did it take 30 years after the hippie/student radical generation, I wonder?


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

williamson said:


> I'm glad you wrote the phrase which I have underlined; I very much doubt that business casual is more comfortable.


Yes indeed. Show me a pair of jeans that is as comfortable as a pair of properly tailored flannels!

But I don't get worked up about it anymore; even about our shared bete noire of the tie-less suit. Not worth the mental energy.


----------



## mrfixit (Dec 30, 2012)

orange fury said:


> Dat belt buckle :eek2:


word. need that.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

I want one that says 'Intel Inside'.


----------



## CMDC (Jan 31, 2009)

Nothing worse than the denim shirt and tie combo. Just awful.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

CMDC said:


> Nothing worse than the denim shirt and tie combo. Just awful.


*Shrug.*


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

williamson said:


> I am sure your chronology is right; why did it take 30 years after the hippie/student radical generation, I wonder?


It took that long for them to gain positions of authority where they could make these changes? Just a hunch.

It's probably why the "trad" was so popular in the 50s and 60s. It was about 30 years after the fashion leaders of interwar Princeton and Yale graduated.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Natty Beau said:


> It took that long for them to gain positions of authority where they could make these changes? Just a hunch.
> 
> It's probably why the "trad" was so popular in the 50s and 60s. It was about 30 years after the fashion leaders of interwar Princeton and Yale graduated.


I agree - it takes a long time for an embedded cultural shift like this to happen, especially in a corner of the culture - business - where attire was a very strong signal of stability and financial prudence. People have to accept a new norm and that takes time both for people to change their perception of appropriate dress and, as stated by Natty Beau, time for the business leadership roles to shift to the younger generation willing to embrace the new ideas. Yes the hippie broke out in the '60s popular culture, but they weren't getting jobs on Wall Street or at IMB dressed as hippies.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Balfour said:


> Quite. In London legal practice, few firms now require suit and tie all the time (although people are expected to have it available for client meetings, court, etc.). This is very different from even 10 years ago. What runs contrary to the mentality on these boards is most people don't care about tailored clothing, but will dress in jacket and tie when social convention demands it. Remove the social pressure, and is it any surprise that many people choose to dress in less expensive and easier to maintain clothes (objective advantages) which they perceive to be more comfortable (subjective)?
> 
> Personally, I'm now very relaxed about this (having, admittedly, at one stage cared A LOT:icon_peaceplease. The sky hasn't fallen in and people still seem to do a professional job. And, as I said in another thread,* I actually far prefer the aesthetics of well-executed casual clothes to someone doing the bear minimum to comply with a suit and tie dress code*.


Agreed.

Whilst working as a sales representative I experienced the worst excessess of bare minimum suit and tie exhibited by colleagues. :icon_pale:

.
.

.
.
.


----------



## oxford cloth button down (Jan 1, 2012)

Balfour said:


> I actually far prefer the aesthetics of well-executed casual clothes to someone doing the bear minimum to comply with a suit and tie dress code.


I rarely see well-executed casual clothes. The women, yes. Then men, rarely. I would rather have them minimally comply with the business casual dress code. This helps get everyone on the same page. My thinking is that this is a place of business not a cook out at your friends or a night club.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

oxford cloth button down said:


> I rarely see well-executed casual clothes. The women, yes. Then men, rarely. I would rather have them minimally comply with the business casual dress code. This helps get everyone on the same page. My thinking is that this is a place of business not a cook out at your friends or a night club.


I visited a friend of mine at work who works in fashion recently and, there, the men know how to dress casually. While some things are a bit out there, they were clearly thought out rigs and, overall, the attire looked sharp for a fashion firm (recognizing that we are far, far away from the world of Trad here).

But I also recently had a meeting at a high-tech firm and a Wall Street firm (that is business casual) and, OCBD, you are spot on, the men looked all over the map and not particularly good (the woman were half and half, some women really knew how to dress business casual). And to your point, I felt (especially at the tech firm) like I was at an backyard bar-b-que. These firms need guidelines or, maybe, it just doesn't matter anymore as so few dress well that not dressing well is the quite acceptable norm.


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

I think the most annoying thing about business casual (from the outlook looking in--I've avoided it so far) is that it would conflate my casual and business clothes to a great degree.

I know that is the trad dream, in a way, but I like to dress down when not at work, and my current casual clothes are either on par with or more formal than business casual. It would be weird.


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

Natty Beau said:


> I think the most annoying thing about business casual (from the outlook looking in--I've avoided it so far) is that it would conflate my casual and business clothes to a great degree.
> 
> I know that is the trad dream, in a way, but I like to dress down when not at work, and my current casual clothes are either on par with or more formal than business casual. It would be weird.


I worked for a credit union in college where the dress code was just a polo and khakis, prior to working there that was my casual go-to, so it ruined it for me for a little while. That's part of the reason that I wear a tie and jacket to work now, even if I don't necessarily need to.


----------



## Trad-ish (Feb 19, 2011)

Topsider said:


> *Shrug.*


For the record, I have no dog in this. 
That said, that clip immediately came to mind!


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

orange fury said:


> I worked for a credit union in college where the dress code was just a polo and khakis, prior to working there that was my casual go-to, so it ruined it for me for a little while. That's part of the reason that I wear a tie and jacket to work now, even if I don't necessarily need to.


That must have sucked! I wear a tie and jacket as my casual go-to, so imagine how much weirder that would be.


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

orange fury said:


> ...I wear a tie and jacket to work now, even if I don't necessarily need to.





Natty Beau said:


> I wear a tie and jacket as my casual go-to, so imagine how much weirder that would be.


When I retired several years ago, I moved over to more casual clothing, but heve "reverted" to jacket and tie at least two or three days a week. Nobody has commented!


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

oxford cloth button down said:


> I rarely see *well-executed casual clothes*. The women, yes. Then men, rarely. I would rather have them minimally comply with the business casual dress code. This helps get everyone on the same page. My thinking is that this is a place of business not a cook out at your friends or a night club.


You are an exemplar of this. But I agree with your observations in general.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Natty Beau said:


> I think the *most annoying thing* about business casual ... is that it would conflate my casual and business clothes to a great degree.
> 
> I know that is the trad dream, in a way, but I like to dress down when not at work, and my current casual clothes are either on par with or more formal than business casual. It would be weird.


May I ask why? Genuinely interested; no snark.


----------



## dwebber18 (Jun 5, 2008)

This article has come around at exactly the right time. I currently work in a casual workplace, shorts and a polo with flip flops are the minimum(many wear t-shirts though). I am about to start a new job at one of the companies mentioned in that article and they are "business casual". I plan to wear a jacket and tie on my first day to see how that goes but don't plan to wear less than a dress shirt and slacks daily. In the last few months I've been trying to wear a jacket and tie at least one day a week and I am enjoying the process. I don't have that many clothes that work well with the jackets and ties I have though. I like plaid and check shirts and I'm having a little trouble matching those with jackets and ties but as I add more ties to my collection it becomes easier.


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

Balfour said:


> May I ask why? Genuinely interested; no snark.


Changing one's clothes can change one's state of mind, right? So if I come home from work and plan to relax for the night, I like to change into more relaxed clothes.

If I have to wear relaxed clothes at work, what will I change into?

(For context, outside of July, August and September when it's too hot, I can be found wearing a tie and jacket during virtually all my leisure time.)


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

What does "business casual" consist of?


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Howard said:


> What does "business casual" consist of?


There's the rub!


----------



## dnfuss (Mar 17, 2005)

Fading Fast said:


> In finance in the late 1980s, I was working for an investment bank and it was a big, and I mean big, deal when we were first allowed to wear dress chinos (true dress chinos - practically, everyone got the same or similar pair from Brooks Brothers [5 blocks away]) a shirt, tie, leather loafers (not bucks) and blue blazer on Friday in the summers only. That was the first crack in the all-suit armor and things stayed like that until the early 90s and, then, things started changing rapidly.


I am a partner at a Wall Street law firm. I started as a young associate in the mid-1980s. I worked for a (then) young partner who is now the head of the firm. He was the driving force behind our adoption of business casual in the very early 1990s. He has told me in confidence that he now regrets having done it.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

dnfuss said:


> I am a partner at a Wall Street law firm. I started as a young associate in the mid-1980s. I worked for a (then) young partner who is now the head of the firm. He was the driving force behind our adoption of business casual in the very early 1990s. He has told me in confidence that he now regrets having done it.


I worked for several finance firms over the years (sometimes, I never changed offices, but mergers and acquisitions brought me to new firms with new managers) and there always seemed to be one or a few passionate people pushing the dress casual policy. But most change in anything comes from a few passionate individuals.

As a small funny story, at one point, I was running a trading department at a firm that was business attire except for Fridays (business casual on those days) and had a senior trader who passionately (deeply passionately) wanted us to go to business casual everyday. While, as per the company policy, I could have set the policy for my department, since my traders sat next to other department traders, I wanted to see how my boss (the head of all trading and sales) felt about it. He was aggressively opposed personally, but told me I could do what I wanted with my group since that was company policy.

I decided not to because (1) I think business attire helped us look and act more professional (2) only one person in my reasonably large department was pushing for it and (3) my manager didn't like it and it seemed a bad idea to go against his wishes on this issue.

Well, when I told my trader no (and explained the three reasons why), he kept pushing and pushing me for weeks. Finally - after checking with my manager first - I told the trader he could talk to my manager about it, but I warned him first that my manager didn't like the idea and that I wouldn't do it (you only get so many opportunities to meet with and make an impression on your boss' boss, so I told him not to waste it on this item which my boss didn't like anyway).

Well he went and met with my boss, pushed hard and got shot down. Even then, he would occasionally bring it up both to me and - in hallway conversations - to my boss. My boss finally said to me, I don't ever want to hear another word from "that guy" about clothes. Some people are so passionate that they don't know when to stop.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

dnfuss said:


> ...He has told me in confidence that he now regrets having done it.


On what basis?

I write as someone who doesn't care for business casual personally. And I used to care a lot about maintaining dress codes overall. But I've mellowed substantially on this recently and have more sympathy for a laissez-faire approach subject to (1) minimum standards (all of the time) and (2) requiring conservative business dress in specific situations (client meetings, obviously court, etc.).

Frankly, if people prefer to wear khakis and an open-necked button up shirt when sitting in their offices doing their work, I do not see the need to insist on a full suit in such circumstances, so long as one is on the back of the office door and a tie is in the desk drawer.


----------



## dnfuss (Mar 17, 2005)

Balfour said:


> On what basis?
> 
> I write as someone who doesn't care for business casual personally. And I used to care a lot about maintaining dress codes overall. But I've mellowed substantially on this recently and have more sympathy for a laissez-faire approach subject to (1) minimum standards (all of the time) and (2) requiring conservative business dress in specific situations (client meetings, obviously court, etc.).
> 
> Frankly, if people prefer to wear khakis and an open-necked button up shirt when sitting in their offices doing their work, I do not see the need to insist on a full suit in such circumstances, so long as one is on the back of the office door and a tie is in the desk drawer.


Client meetings are usually not an issue. It's the "minimum standards" thing that's the problem. In this instance, the slippery slope argument turned out to be a valid one. He imagined men would wear sport jackets (with ties much of the time) and good wool trousers and women would wear the distaff equivalent. He did not foresee that once the floodgates were opened, people would begin to see any set of rules, no matter how much looser than what used to be in place, as rigid and unnecessary. To this day, we have to re-circulate the dress code memo on a frequent basis to remind people that some particular article/type of clothing is not allowed. There have been extensive email exchanges about why polo shirts should be acceptable (they currently are not, but I see that as a losing battle). Younger staff (especially women) seem mystified as to why they can't wear flip-flops and/or tank tops during hot summer months. It constantly has to be explained that sneakers, no matter how trendy, are not permitted. Etc., etc.


----------



## Oak City Trad (Aug 2, 2014)

dnfuss said:


> He imagined men would wear sport jackets (with ties much of the time) and good wool trousers and women would wear the distaff equivalent. He did not foresee that once the floodgates were opened, people would begin to see any set of rules, no matter how much looser than what used to be in place, as rigid and unnecessary.


It's defining that bare minimum that's the issue. You'd look like a tool in a sportcoat and "corporate noose", but Birkenstocks and sportswear don't get a second glance.

Dictating a suits-only policy in most workplaces isn't the answer, but the opposite is that pajama jeans (yes, a real thing) and Snuggies could become de rigeur. I still think there's a lot of range in acceptable yet comfortable businesswear.

Reference: for laughs, see Joel Reynolds in Curb Your Enthusiasm "The Acupuncturist"


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

At a certain point, the battle has to be lost unless one can argue and demonstrate a business / profit-driven reason to maintain higher standards than the industry norm. 

If other firms in your industry allow their employees to dress to a certain level a casualness, that level will become the norm. You will not be able to competitively keep and attract employees if your dress code is above the other firms. Part of the reason Wall Street firms started going casual in the late 90s was to compete with tech firms for young talent.

If you can argue and demonstrate that by dressing nicer, your business is attracting more customers or in some way driving revenue, then you will be able to enforce a dress code (which is why some parts of finance still dress in suits and ties), but if you can't and your competition isn't, then the battle will ultimately be lost. 

That will be the determinate. If all of your competitors, to use an example above, let their female employees wear flip flops and tank tops, then your business will ultimately do so. Yes, a closely held private company can hold out longer, but ultimately, the marketplace for employees will drive the result. 

And I say all this as someone who wishes we had never let the business casual camel's nose under the tent - but maybe it was inevitable. Cultural forces were changing in the larger society and dress is a cultural phenomenon and social behavior, so it would ultimately have to change the norm in business.

I'd watch society: if we saw a general movement toward better dressing at social events (no evidence of that now based on the last funeral and the last wedding I attended), then business attire would shift up too over time, but until societal norms about dressing move in that direction, business attire won't improve.


----------



## oxford cloth button down (Jan 1, 2012)

I do see men in suits, ties, and sport coats often. Between the hours of 8-5 I would say that 30% of then men I encounter outside of my office are wearing a tie, suit or sport coat. There are bankers, lawyers, law firms, accounting firm, city hall, courthouse, chamber of commerce, and maybe a few other companies in a 4 block area. There is also some type of flood insurance company with 100 or so employees. Only mid-level managers on up wear ties there.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

dnfuss said:


> Client meetings are usually not an issue. It's the "minimum standards" thing that's the problem. In this instance, the slippery slope argument turned out to be a valid one. He imagined men would wear sport jackets (with ties much of the time) and good wool trousers and women would wear the distaff equivalent. He did not foresee that once the floodgates were opened, people would begin to see any set of rules, no matter how much looser than what used to be in place, as rigid and unnecessary. To this day, we have to re-circulate the dress code memo on a frequent basis to remind people that some particular article/type of clothing is not allowed. There have been extensive email exchanges about why polo shirts should be acceptable (they currently are not, but I see that as a losing battle). Younger staff (especially women) seem mystified as to why they can't wear flip-flops and/or tank tops during hot summer months. It constantly has to be explained that sneakers, no matter how trendy, are not permitted. Etc., etc.


Ah, I see. I do find this very odd. I was talking about not insisting people wear a full suit to sit in front of a computer or do document review, but had in mind changing into pressed cotton trousers and a button-up collared shirt, not 'streetwear' or nightclubbing gear.



Oak City Trad said:


> It's defining that bare minimum that's the issue. You'd look like a tool in a sportcoat and "corporate noose", but Birkenstocks and sportswear don't get a second glance.
> 
> Dictating a suits-only policy in most workplaces isn't the answer, but the opposite is that pajama jeans (yes, a real thing) and Snuggies could become de rigeur. *I still think there's a lot of range in acceptable yet comfortable business wear.*


Agree.


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

Excellent point, Fading Fast. I never thought about it as being market driven by employees, but it makes sense once you do.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Natty Beau said:


> Excellent point, Fading Fast. I never thought about it as being market driven by employees, but it makes sense once you do.


I think economists refer to this as "market failure."


----------



## oxford cloth button down (Jan 1, 2012)

Natty Beau said:


> Excellent point, Fading Fast. I never thought about it as being market driven by employees, but it makes sense once you do.


I disagree that it is market driven. I think that it is more driven by culture. Lots of people like to dress up, but because human beings in general will do the minimum that is required this casual code lowers the bar very low and because the bar is set so low anyone that does want to look more professional feels foolish doing so.


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

L-feld said:


> I think economists refer to this as "market failure."


LOL.



oxford cloth button down said:


> I disagree that it is market driven. I think that it is more driven by culture. Lots of people like to dress up, but because human beings in general will do the minimum that is required this casual code lowers the bar very low and because the bar is set so low anyone that does want to look more professional feels foolish doing so.


Perhaps both phenomena are in play--companies lower standards to compete for employees, and then remaining employees who like professional clothes are pressured into conforming with the minimum expectation.

That said, no one's been able to make me feel foolish for wearing a suit to my no-suits-required job yet. The trick is making them not want to try.


----------



## 69firebird (Jul 28, 2014)

dnfuss said:


> I am a partner at a Wall Street law firm. I started as a young associate in the mid-1980s. I worked for a (then) young partner who is now the head of the firm. He was the driving force behind our adoption of business casual in the very early 1990s. He has told me in confidence that he now regrets having done it.


Maybe be we'll see more of this, I know at different jobs I've had leaders have threaten to go more formal if folks didn't self regulate.

business casual to some is a sport coat and no tie to others pajamas


----------



## oxford cloth button down (Jan 1, 2012)

Natty Beau said:


> That said, no one's been able to make me feel foolish for wearing a suit to my no-suits-required job yet. The trick is making them not want to try.


Foolish was the wrong word. I was being facetious. I really should have said that most people will conform to the social norm which is set by the "low bars". Us on the trad forum will almost always be outliers outside of the more conservative industries (banking, law, insurance, real estate).


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

oxford cloth button down said:


> Foolish was the wrong word. I was being facetious. I really should have said that most people will conform to the social norm which is set by the "low bars". Us on the trad forum will almost always be outliers outside of the more conservative industries (banking, law, insurance, real estate).


I'm an outlier even though I'm in one of the more conservative industries.


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

In regards to the comment about management regretting going to business casual- last year I interviewed with a major petroleum company, and through the process the VP of risk management kept mentioning to me that the company was business casual, but as much as he hated it there was no going back, because when the employees were given an inch, they took a mile.

Also, I mentioned this in WAYWT, but during my 6-month review with my supervisor yesterday, a specific line on my evaluation was that I always dressed "impeccably", and upper management wished the rest of the office would "take a page from my playbook". I took the compliment and laughed it off, but it seems that upper management are really the ones wishing by and large that we could go back to some sort of more formal workplace dress standards. I told them yesterday that when I dress professionally, I FEEL professional, and I think that makes me more effective in my job.


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

oxford cloth button down said:


> Foolish was the wrong word. I was being facetious. I really should have said that most people will conform to the social norm which is set by the "low bars". *Us on the trad forum will almost always be outliers outside of the more conservative industries (banking, law, insurance, real estate).*


It depends though- I've worked in several of those industries, and golf polos/chinos have been par for the course (pardon the pun) in my offices. Like I said earlier, in college I worked at a credit union where that was all I ever wore. Once I got into my career (and current position), though most of my office still wears golf shirts/chinos, I decided to at least dress the part of a professional.

And it it allows me to wear a polo/khakis casually and not feel like I'm going to work lol.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

oxford cloth button down said:


> I disagree that it is market driven. I think that it is more driven by culture. Lots of people like to dress up, but because human beings in general will do the minimum that is required this casual code lowers the bar very low and because the bar is set so low anyone that does want to look more professional feels foolish doing so.


I agree in part and tried (unsuccessfully) to tie these two points together in my post.

Competing for employees absolutely is part of it as I lived through the meetings where we changed policy to attract younger people based on HR's feedback that college grads and young employees in general didn't want to go to a "stuffy bank and wear a suit and tie" since the tech world didn't require you to wear one. I'm over simplifying what was a extensive HR study and firm debate, but policy was changed to compete for employees.

To the second point (OCBD's), that was what I was trying to say with my reference to societal norms. None of the above about competing for employees would have happened if society hadn't already been moving to casual attire. This societal-wide cultural change is the driver, the change in business attire / competing for young employees is just a consequence.

Which is why I closed with the comment that I would watch society at large to see if it becomes more formal / less informal because it will happen there first and then spill back to business - if it ever happens (no evidence of that being the case so far).


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

Fading Fast said:


> Which is why I closed with the comment that I would watch society at large to see if it becomes more formal / less informal because it will happen there first and then spill back to business - if it ever happens (no evidence of that being the case so far).


Even though the fits are still super slim, I do think there's a growing overall trend moving that direction. A ton of the people I graduated with (undergrad and MBA) dress similarly to how I do. Many also went into the same industry as me, but still.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

> Also, I mentioned this in WAYWT, but during my 6-month review with my supervisor yesterday, a specific line on my evaluation was that I always dressed "impeccably", and upper management wished the rest of the office would "take a page from my playbook". I took the compliment and laughed it off, but it seems that upper management are really the ones wishing by and large that we could go back to some sort of more formal workplace dress standards. I told them yesterday that when I dress professionally, I FEEL professional, and I think that makes me more effective in my job.


So, you're saying that others should dress more professionally? That would be a great idea and most people should take heed of that. The workplace would be more professional and you would be more noticed if they did.

Like if one person wants to dress up wearing a tie doing outside work, I say go for it just as long as you feel comfortable wearing it.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

orange fury said:


> Even though the fits are still super slim, I do think there's a growing overall trend moving that direction. A ton of the people I graduated with (undergrad and MBA) dress similarly to how I do. Many also went into the same industry as me, but still.


I suspect a blip / dead cat bounce in a downwards long-term trend. After all, it's a lot cheaper and easier to dress casually. I just can't see future generations getting into the whole cycle of learning about dressing in, buying and caring for tailored clothes for regular use when the external pressure to do so has been removed (FF's societal norms). You can already see the absence of learning about dressing in tailored clothes from the daily traffic accidents one sees when people try to dress up. Perhaps I'm too pessimistic, but the long-term trends (over 200 years) seem to bear this out.

And I don't think any of us would wish to go back to the beginning of the last century where dressing appropriately involved self-mortification (e.g. heavy serge three-piece suit in the un-airconditioned Summer).


----------



## Oak City Trad (Aug 2, 2014)

orange fury said:


> In regards to the comment about management regretting going to business casual- last year I interviewed with a major petroleum company, and through the process the VP of risk management kept mentioning to me that the company was business casual, but as much as he hated it there was no going back, because when the employees were given an inch, they took a mile.
> 
> Also, I mentioned this in WAYWT, but during my 6-month review with my supervisor yesterday, a specific line on my evaluation was that I always dressed "impeccably", and upper management wished the rest of the office would "take a page from my playbook". I took the compliment and laughed it off, but it seems that upper management are really the ones wishing by and large that we could go back to some sort of more formal workplace dress standards. I told them yesterday that when I dress professionally, I FEEL professional, and I think that makes me more effective in my job.


I interviewed at a large contracting firm years ago. My questions were largely around the types of contracts the firm typically procured, their business process, etc. The answers, however, were along the lines of "look, we're not a suit-and-tie type of establishment" and "I'm only wearing a sportcoat because we have candidates interviewing today; usually I'm real laid back!"

I drew two conclusions from this encounter. One, that being laid back and dressing well are mutually exclusive; and there's a huge amount of misplaced animus toward the necktie (I'm lookin at you, Branson). Two, more to the point, the guy could tell me nothing substantial about what he or his company did.

I'm not expecting everyone to be George Hamiltoning it up at the office all day, everyday. But if the best thing you can sell me on is your dress code, your company might have some issues.

End result: I didn't bother pursuing the gig. Company was later acquired. World keeps spinnin'.

P.S. - for any HR folks out there, a stained, ratty sportcoat is not "dressing up" for a candidate. It's sloth, and it sends a message.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

orange fury said:


> Even though the fits are still super slim, I do think there's a growing overall trend moving that direction. A ton of the people I graduated with (undergrad and MBA) dress similarly to how I do. Many also went into the same industry as me, but still.


That is good to hear and I see it in NYC where some percentage of the 20 year olds are trying with their skinny Suit Supply or J.Crew suits, but the broader trends are against us.

The first sign - IMHO - isn't, as Balfour eloquently said, a blip in youth dressing, but when we start to see all generations making more of an effort at what used to be "required" dress-up events like going to nice restaurants, funerals or even flying (might be a bad example as planes themselves have morphed from being elite travel to buses in the sky, but you get the point).

This plays back to the view that it was societal changes writ large that ultimately led to the change at work - hence, we will need society at large to start to change back for work to change.

But maybe I'm wrong and Orange Fury will lead a vanguard of his generation to reestablish new standards. What industry do you work in OF? I'm guessing some version of finance?


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

orange fury said:


> It depends though- I've worked in several of those industries, and golf polos/chinos have been par for the course (pardon the pun) in my offices. Like I said earlier, in college I worked at a credit union where that was all I ever wore. Once I got into my career (and current position), though most of my office still wears golf shirts/chinos, I decided to at least dress the part of a professional.
> 
> *And it it allows me to wear a polo/khakis casually and not feel like I'm going to work lol*.


This. I buy sport coats that are fun to wear (patterns, fabrics, etc.) and I'd hate to have to wear them to work just to be casual. It would take the fun out of them.


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

Fading Fast said:


> But maybe I'm wrong and Orange Fury will lead a vanguard of his generation to reestablish new standards.


One thing I've been struggling to articulate on this kind of topic is that the born-after-ca-1980 generation doesn't want standards. Look in the media at the profusion of new "lifestyles," "identities," consumer choices, etc.

My forecast is it will be that as long as relative prosperity lasts, the west will see common culture increasingly disappear in favor of radical individualism.

That's why I think tailored clothing has a chance among a subset of young people--when we rule the land there may well be no standards of any kind, and some people who are currently afraid to "dress up" won't have reason to fear public opinion anymore.

I already see this happening around me, to an extent.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Interesting thread in a similar vein:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...uburbanization-on-clothing&highlight=trousers


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

Balfour said:


> Interesting thread in a similar vein:
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...uburbanization-on-clothing&highlight=trousers


Hm. Makes sense to me.

Lately I've not worn my hat to work every day, seeing as I drive in a climate-controlled car from the suburbs. When I used to live in the city and ride public transportation, I was never without one.


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

Fading Fast said:


> But maybe I'm wrong and Orange Fury will lead a vanguard of his generation to reestablish new standards. What industry do you work in OF? I'm guessing some version of finance?


does that mean I get to carry a large patch madras flag with me everywhere? ¡Viva la revolución! :thumbs-up:

And I work in insurance (on the carrier side). So finance-ish lol


----------



## oxford cloth button down (Jan 1, 2012)

It turns out that I don't think standards are quite as bad as most here. Like I said, " Between the hours of 8-5 I would say that 30% of the men I encounter outside of my office are wearing a tie, suit or sport coat."

I just don't happen to like many of their choices 



Natty Beau said:


> One thing I've been struggling to articulate on this kind of topic is that the born-after-ca-1980 generation doesn't want standards. Look in the media at the profusion of new "lifestyles," "identities," consumer choices, etc.
> 
> My forecast is it will be that as long as relative prosperity lasts, the west will see common culture increasingly disappear in favor of radical individualism.
> 
> ...


I would blame the Baby Boomers for the casual dress code, before the after 1980 kids. It was their parents that taught them "radical individualism."



Fading Fast said:


> t.
> 
> Competing for employees absolutely is part of it as I lived through the meetings where we changed policy to attract younger people based on HR's feedback that college grads and young employees in general didn't want to go to a "stuffy bank and wear a suit and tie" since the tech world didn't require you to wear one. I'm over simplifying what was a extensive HR study and firm debate, but policy was changed to compete for employees.


It seems like college educated candidates are a dime a dozen right now, but I could see a company doing this. Many companies in my industry encourage or hire that way because it gives the appearance of being young tech cool.



Fading Fast said:


> To the second point (OCBD's), that was what I was trying to say with my reference to societal norms. None of the above about competing for employees would have happened if society hadn't already been moving to casual attire. This societal-wide cultural change is the driver, the change in business attire / competing for young employees is just a consequence.
> 
> Which is why I closed with the comment that I would watch society at large to see if it becomes more formal / less informal because it will happen there first and then spill back to business - if it ever happens (no evidence of that being the case so far).


I think the reason has a lot to do with Baby Boomers.

By the way, this is a really fun thread. I am enjoying the discussion and points of view.


----------



## Oak City Trad (Aug 2, 2014)

oxford cloth button down said:


> Many companies in my industry encourage or hire that way because it gives the appearance of being young tech cool.


Emphasis on appearance. The look has been co-opted, unknowingly I think, by people who haven't necessarily earned their stripes. Also what's the old saying, you've got to know the rules in order to break them in style?

But even Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg got rich off other people's ideas. Regardless, most people are not these people.


----------



## WillBarrett (Feb 18, 2012)

I work in a suburban insurance agency - anything more than a button front shirt and slacks would be offputting to most of my customers. I intend to dress better once I have my own agency, but even then, I'm stuck in a box where dressing in what I deem as professional would likely be viewed as too uppity on the part of my clientele. It's a catch-22.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I'm in a similar spot as WillBarrett. I work in higher ed as an editor/writer, which casts me into the creative-type pool. I sense that most of the people here who dress in suit and tie and even blazer and tie are in business or law. If I were to dress in anything dressier than a decent OCBD and nice khakis or trousers, people would spend more time talking to me about how I dress than about the work we're doing. It would just be too odd. 

At the same time, people in my line of work can, and do, dress well on the job without having to get into a suit or even a blazer. I occasionally will don my blazers, especially in the fall and winter when the layer also conveys the utiliarian purpose of warmth. And there are events in my line of work where "dressing better" is required. But for standard, everyday work attire, it really makes more sense for us to dress as well as we can in what is loosely called "business casual." Many of my colleagues take this inch and turn it into a mile by going with ill-fitting polos and sloppy Gap khakis, and much worse. I try to elevate it by wearing decent things that come from the "trad line" that one can get away with outside of a blazer or suit, and that does go beyond just decent OCBDs and other kinds of button-up shirts with good chinos or dress trousers. In any case, I hardly feel "unprofessional" just because I'm not in a tie and jacket.

Much of how one appears professional must have to do with the context.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Natty Beau said:


> One thing I've been struggling to articulate on this kind of topic is that the born-after-ca-1980 generation doesn't want standards. Look in the media at the profusion of new "lifestyles," "identities," consumer choices, etc.
> 
> My forecast is it will be that as long as relative prosperity lasts, the west will see common culture increasingly disappear in favor of radical individualism.
> 
> ...


This is an interesting premise - radical individualism - that we've seen our mature capitalist system (think of the insane variety of almost any product from soda to cars that one can buy off the shelve), combine with digital technology (you watch "your" show, when you want, on your devise [substitute play game, read book, etc. - it is all the same personal freedom]) - to allow for hyper-personal freedom and expression in a way we haven't seen before.

I've often thought this is why private clubs - like The Elks, etc. - have slowly died off as people now have more options for entertainment and don't need clubs anymore. Maybe you are right that this bigger individual freedom theme is driving the movement toward, not just casual dress, but the "dress as you want" ethos.

I want to think more about this: is freedom itself driving the change or is technology / markets / wealth allowing for an opportunistic period of personal freedom.

If the former, i.e., individual freedom is the prime mover, than to Natty Beau point - as long as we remain wealthy, we'll see personal freedom expand and societal norms (like formal attire by implied diktat) decline; obversely, if advanced markets and technology are just giving us a momentary burst of personal expression, then man's social cravings might see us revert back to more conventional social rules (man is a social animal according to the evolutionary biologists - meaning, we like groups and respond to signals from others which is why we build communities, create rules, etc.).

As a libertarian, I'm all for more personal freedom and expression, but have no problem with social rules and conventions as long as they are organic to the society and not driven by government edit - any libertarian worth his or her salt can decide with social rules he or she will conform to and which ones he or she will ignore.

I hope you are right about radical individualism, but we will see over time. As OCBD said, this is a great thought-provoking thread in which my above comment are really only my inchoate impressions - I need to think a lot more about this. Great post Natty Beau


----------



## wwilson (Jul 13, 2012)

Duvel said:


> I'm in a similar spot as WillBarrett. I work in higher ed as an editor/writer, which casts me into the creative-type pool. I sense that most of the people here who dress in suit and tie and even blazer and tie are in business or law. If I were to dress in anything dressier than a decent OCBD and nice khakis or trousers, people would spend more time talking to me about how I dress than about the work we're doing. It would just be too odd.
> 
> At the same time, people in my line of work can, and do, dress well on the job without having to get into a suit or even a blazer. I occasionally will don my blazers, especially in the fall and winter when the layer also conveys the utiliarian purpose of warmth. And there are events in my line of work where "dressing better" is required. But for standard, everyday work attire, it really makes more sense for us to dress as well as we can in what is loosely called "business casual." Many of my colleagues take this inch and turn it into a mile by going with ill-fitting polos and sloppy Gap khakis, and much worse. I try to elevate it by wearing decent things that come from the "trad line" that one can get away with outside of a blazer or suit, and that does go beyond just decent OCBDs and other kinds of button-up shirts with good chinos or dress trousers. In any case, I hardly feel "unprofessional" just because I'm not in a tie and jacket.
> 
> Much of how one appears professional must have to do with the context.


I'm in the same boat. As a civil engineer working in higher education, I have sloppy "engi-nerds" all around me for most of the day. Most of the students dress better than the professors, and anything related to a blazer or sport coat is looked at rather oddly. I run a concrete research laboratory, which does not fit most "laboratory" interpretations; more of an indoor construction zone that beakers and labcoats. I have recently upgraded from Carhartts, boots and t-shirts to thrifted khakis and OCBDs here in the last year. Anything more would be considered somewhat out of place or possibly out of context for my job duties. I would love to see my department improve the dress code, but tenured faculty tend to do what they want with regards to personal appearance.

I do feel better and maybe even a little more professional when I dress better, and I think it portrays a better image for the laboratory. I just really wish my shoes didn't take such a beating! I'm planning on full use of a Harris Tweed blazer this fall along with my recently cleaned Barbour (+1 to New England Reproofers!) and hopefully they will help promote better form than what is currently seen in this department.


----------



## red_shift (Aug 8, 2013)

WillBarrett said:


> I work in a suburban insurance agency - anything more than a button front shirt and slacks would be offputting to most of my customers. I intend to dress better once I have my own agency, but even then, I'm stuck in a box where dressing in what I deem as professional would likely be viewed as too uppity on the part of my clientele. It's a catch-22.


I still struggle with this sentiment in my day to day. I've settled on wearing formal and semi-formal clothes as often as possible and cultivating a 'lived-in' appearance. It's obvious when someone is in their 'monkey suit' and when someone wears a suit and tie habitually and I think it comes across with clients, coworkers and friends and acquaintances.

Also, I thought the rule for selling anything is to be one level higher than your clients in terms of dress, up to full suit? The modern perception is that you're 'inconveniencing' yourself with more restrictive clothes but I think you're showing that you know how to do more than slap on a T-shirt and shorts every morning and that should come across as increased sales.

When I started wearing ties to the office, without coats because I didn't know any better, I often heard that people don't wear them any more since they are 'uncomfortable'. After learning how to wear tailored clothing I find that I'm no more or less comfortable than I was in the junk I had before, give or take a few 90+ degree days. I've also learned to reign it in and I think it's perceived as me being serious about my job as well as my presentation.


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

red_shift said:


> When I started wearing ties to the office, without coats because I didn't know any better, I often heard that people don't wear them any more since they are 'uncomfortable'. After learning how to wear tailored clothing I find that I'm no more or less comfortable than I was in the junk I had before, give or take a few 90+ degree days. I've also learned to reign it in and I think it's perceived as me being serious about my job as well as my presentation.


once I discovered how clothing was supposed to fit (what would be considered "dress clothes" specifically), I found them to be just as comfortable as any other clothing. For the 90*F+ days (since that is May-September here), that is where a rotation of linen, cotton, and linen/cotton blend clothing comes into play


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Case in point: For one of our "new student" ceremonies today, I threw on my BB navy blazer over my workday ensemble. Even though the rest of my workday ensemble was decidedly casual (necktie, pressed chinos, and OCBD), I got some looks (because I was wearing a blazer). My boss wore unpressed Nantucket red chinos and an untucked shirt under a Patagonia fleece jacket. But I felt good about it, in the way you stand out when you know you look good. And more important, I was very comfortable, not only because the clothes fit well but also because I felt I was dressed appropriately to the occasion.

Back in the office, I removed the blazer because the context demands a more casual appearance.


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

red_shift said:


> I still struggle with this sentiment in my day to day. I've settled on wearing formal and semi-formal clothes as often as possible and cultivating a 'lived-in' appearance. It's obvious when someone is in their 'monkey suit' and when someone wears a suit and tie habitually and I think it comes across with clients, coworkers and friends and acquaintances.
> 
> Also, I thought the rule for selling anything is to be one level higher than your clients in terms of dress, up to full suit? The modern perception is that you're 'inconveniencing' yourself with more restrictive clothes but I think you're showing that you know how to do more than slap on a T-shirt and shorts every morning and that should come across as increased sales.
> 
> When I started wearing ties to the office, without coats because I didn't know any better, I often heard that people don't wear them any more since they are 'uncomfortable'. After learning how to wear tailored clothing I find that I'm no more or less comfortable than I was in the junk I had before, give or take a few 90+ degree days. I've also learned to reign it in and I think it's perceived as me being serious about my job as well as my presentation.


I like your school of thought and share it. When you say "formal" and "semi-formal," I take it you don't mean white tie and black tie, though. Not sure what you mean.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

> And I don't think any of us would wish to go back to the beginning of the last century where dressing appropriately involved self-mortification (e.g. heavy serge three-piece suit in the UN-airconditioned Summer)


I think most of us would look peculiar dressing like they used to dress from the last century.


----------



## red_shift (Aug 8, 2013)

Natty Beau said:


> I like your school of thought and share it. When you say "formal" and "semi-formal," I take it you don't mean white tie and black tie, though. Not sure what you mean.


I thought that as I wrote it. Around my office I mean semi-formal as being a dress shirt and slacks and formal being the full SC and tie rig in the style of a lounge suit.

I reserve polos, jeans and the like for my self imposed casual Friday.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Howard said:


> What does "business casual" consist of?


Originally, business casual was very non-casual, but, like with most things in life, give someone an inch and they take a mile.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

red_shift said:


> It's obvious when someone is in their 'monkey suit' and when someone wears a suit and tie habitually and I think it comes across with clients, coworkers and friends and acquaintances.


This is so important. All of the impressive dressers on the WAYWT Trad thread not only know how to dress - their outfits are intelligently coordinated, their clothes are well tailored - but they all look very comfortable in their clothes. Some of our Trad stars - Orange Fury, stcolumba, OCBD and P.Hudson - are stars because they look comfortable and natural in their clothes. None of them look "dressed up" or like they have on their "good clothes." They all look to me like they wear these clothes everyday and, after they picked them out thoughtfully in the morning, don't think about them during the day.

I try real hard to do this, in part, by not wearing new clothes to a situation / event where I want to look my best (as counterintuitive as that sounds) because I want to already know how the clothes feel and that they feel right and look right on me - all day. Sometimes a new suit will be fine at the tailors, but when you wear it the first time, by midmorning, you'll notice that the pants don't sit right or late in the day you'll look at the jacket and the lapel has reverted to an odd roll. Instead, I try to have a few items of lightly worn, high quality, "go to" clothes for those special events: clothes that I've worn enough to know fit well and know that they will still look good at the end of the day so that I don't have to think about them at all during the day.

All easier to say than to do (at least for me).


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Duvel said:


> I'm in a similar spot as WillBarrett. I work in higher ed as an editor/writer, which casts me into the creative-type pool. I sense that most of the people here who dress in suit and tie and even blazer and tie are in business or law. If I were to dress in anything dressier than a decent OCBD and nice khakis or trousers, people would spend more time talking to me about how I dress than about the work we're doing. It would just be too odd.
> 
> At the same time, people in my line of work can, and do, dress well on the job without having to get into a suit or even a blazer. I occasionally will don my blazers, especially in the fall and winter when the layer also conveys the utiliarian purpose of warmth. And there are events in my line of work where "dressing better" is required. But for standard, everyday work attire, it really makes more sense for us to dress as well as we can in what is loosely called "business casual." Many of my colleagues take this inch and turn it into a mile by going with ill-fitting polos and sloppy Gap khakis, and much worse. I try to elevate it by wearing decent things that come from the "trad line" that one can get away with outside of a blazer or suit, and that does go beyond just decent OCBDs and other kinds of button-up shirts with good chinos or dress trousers. In any case, I hardly feel "unprofessional" just because I'm not in a tie and jacket.
> 
> Much of how one appears professional must have to do with the context.


Very sound and sensible approach, if I may say so.


----------



## Walter Denton (Sep 11, 2011)

It's always a slippery slope when standards are relaxed but I think, in many respects, the decline in standards of business dress began even earlier than with the Boomers - and I well remember the revolutionary changes in dress that happened in the late '60's. Let's remember that the Ivy/Trad style itself was once the casual alternative to the stiffer, more structured styles of the late 19th century. The sack suit with soft shoulders, no darts, and a relaxed cut must have seemed pretty radical to the older generation on Wall Street when it was introduced in 1895 and the OCBD brought a country and sporting look to those downtown canyons. The penny loafer in the late 1930's must have seemed more like a pair of slippers than a proper shoe and was, perhaps, popular with early "slacker" college students because it required so little effort to put on. Khakis were essentially blue collar work pants at the same time they were adopted by prep school students and Ivy Leaguers.

My point is that, while we may bemoan the current standard of Business Casual, our beloved Trad style was likely viewed in the same manner by a previous generation and that it is probably useless to expect a return to even a slightly higher standard of generally accepted office attire.


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

red_shift said:


> I thought that as I wrote it. Around my office I mean semi-formal as being a dress shirt and slacks and formal being the full SC and tie rig in the style of a lounge suit.
> 
> I reserve polos, jeans and the like for my self imposed casual Friday.


Ah, gotcha. "Informal" still means lounge suits to me. Somebody online introduced me to the term "semi-informal" for an odd jacket and tie outfit, which seems more apt than "casual," as I used to call it.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I'm not much of a historical expert on these things, but in an anecdotal sense, this rings very true to my experience. I remember dressing as a college student, quite without thinking much of it, in what today is looked at as "college trad" or "Ivy league," with OCBDs, polos, chinos, gabardine trousers, Shetland sweaters, tennis sweaters, loafers, my trusty Baracuta, and the like. I even occasionally wore a tweed blazer. At the time, I felt much, much better dressed than most of my peers (this was early to mid-1970s). BUT I also remember getting told by my superiors in the men's clothing store (where I worked part-time) that my campus attire was an "embarrassment," and that when I got out into the "real world" I would have to get used to dressing much better.



Walter Denton said:


> It's always a slippery slope when standards are relaxed but I think, in many respects, the decline in standards of business dress began even earlier than with the Boomers - and I well remember the revolutionary changes in dress that happened in the late '60's. Let's remember that the Ivy/Trad style itself was once the casual alternative to the stiffer, more structured styles of the late 19th century. The sack suit with soft shoulders, no darts, and a relaxed cut must have seemed pretty radical to the older generation on Wall Street when it was introduced in 1895 and the OCBD brought a country and sporting look to those downtown canyons. The penny loafer in the late 1930's must have seemed more like a pair of slippers than a proper shoe and was, perhaps, popular with early "slacker" college students because it required so little effort to put on. Khakis were essentially blue collar work pants at the same time they were adopted by prep school students and Ivy Leaguers.
> 
> My point is that, while we may bemoan the current standard of Business Casual, our beloved Trad style was likely viewed in the same manner by a previous generation and that it is probably useless to expect a return to even a slightly higher standard of generally accepted office attire.


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

Duvel said:


> I'm not much of a historical expert on these things, but in an anecdotal sense, this rings very true to my experience. I remember dressing as a college student, quite without thinking much of it, in what today is looked at as "college trad" or "Ivy league," with OCBDs, polos, chinos, gabardine trousers, Shetland sweaters, tennis sweaters, loafers, my trusty Baracuta, and the like. I even occasionally wore a tweed blazer. At the time, I felt much, much better dressed than most of my peers (this was early to mid-1970s). BUT I also remember getting told by my superiors in the men's clothing store (where I worked part-time) that my campus attire was an "embarrassment," and that when I got out into the "real world" I would have to get used to dressing much better.


Funny, I was just thinking about business casual dress codes as forcing people to dress like they're in college again.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Yeah, that is funny. I haven't let myself get forced into dressing any kind of way, however, since my USAF officer days. Even then I had choices about how to wear the uniform.



Natty Beau said:


> Funny, I was just thinking about business casual dress codes as forcing people to dress like they're in college again.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

OMG, as the kids say... I just noticed that a couple of people in the office today are wearing slippers. As in, bedroom slippers. I kid you not.


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

Duvel said:


> OMG, as the kids say... I just noticed that a couple of people in the office today are wearing slippers. As in, bedroom slippers. I kid you not.


If it's any consolation, a bunch in my office will be wearing shorts tomorrow. Yeah....


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

It rots from the head down, as they say. It doesn't help that our director wears bright blue boat shoes, a black fleece jacket, and odd-colored khakis as her daily uniform.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Duvel said:


> OMG, as the kids say... I just noticed that a couple of people in the office today are wearing slippers. As in, bedroom slippers. I kid you not.


Why were they wearing slippers?


----------



## Trad-ish (Feb 19, 2011)

Duvel said:


> It rots from the head down, as they say. It doesn't help that our director wears bright blue boat shoes, a black fleece jacket, and odd-colored khakis as her daily uniform.


I'm suspecting you don't mean Brooks Brothers "Black Fleece" either.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Because they're feet were cold. Seriously--that's what I heard.

Of course, I guess bedroom slippers could be considered American trad.



Howard said:


> Why were they wearing slippers?


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

Duvel said:


> Because they're feet were cold. Seriously--that's what I heard.
> 
> Of course, I guess bedroom slippers could be considered American trad.


What else were they supposed to wear when their flip flops failed to provide enough warmth in all that A/C?


----------

