A long time ago in one of the first properties I rented the washing machine stopped working. My flatmate called the agency and a day later, I think it was a Saturday morning, a rough looking man turned up to repair it.
I remember he had a tattered pair of working jeans and a similarly tattered polo shirt on. He pulled the machine out, took it apart diagnosed the issue and popped out to his car get a part. While he was gone my flatmate clued me in to the fact that was the owner of the property, who also owned the agency, and in turn owned a awe-ful lot of property in the local area.
The guy had popped out to his brand new land rover to dig out a part from the back.
I was completely blown away at how humble and down to earth he was.
Years later I worked with a guy, a multi-millionaire, the guy lives in one of the wealthiest neighbourhoods in London. Again dressed in a normal pair of jeans and t-shirt, nothing too noteworthy. I remember him telling me how dry and boring his neighbours are, too concerned with 'things'. When he wants to go for a pint rather than go to his local, he heads to the less well off area a few streets over to the pub there and enjoys the company of normal people.
From these and other experiences I've come to think that the more you look, and act, like you've 'got money' the less you actually have.
I’m of the opinion that truly good clothes do not need to sport a logo at all. Unless you can see/feel the quality, why pay a premium just to show people you spent 500% more on your shirt?
>SSC's analysis of fashion as cellular automata is the most coherent writing on this
For those unfamiliar, it's the top part of this post: (note the year in the url if you choose to continue to part where it actually discusses politics)
I'd love a newer, similar-in-tone treatment of the subject. It seems to be remarkably accurate, still (his treatment of "Class X" aside, which was way off the mark, which he should have known even then) but surely there's room for updated observations.
We did eventually get a much-newer sequel to The Official Preppy Handbook, at least—but it's entirely horrible.
Wearing an unbranded Kirkland Pima Cotton T-shirt right now thinking how much value it has to me. It feels comfortable, looks a little more formal with thicker cotton, and costs less than a branded one.
nothing is lamer than a regular ass t-shirt with the logo of some luxury brand. To me this is just truly paying for the brand and not an actual quality product. A terrible waste of money in my opinion.
An interesting thing is people who buy knock-offs of those things for cheap. I'm not sure why, but I think there could be some kind of peer pressure-like phenomenon. I'm not talking about people who get donated clothing, as they have little choice. I mean people who go out of their way to get the knock off if they cannot afford the real one (which they may wish for).
If you were to spend just a few minutes browsing "hype beast"-like forums/communities around the internet, you would likely arrive very quickly at the conclusion that it isn't about looking put-together and wearing a genuinely fashionable outfit, it's about how many dollars worth of products you can comfortably wear at a time (to get "the drip"), even if that means layering it up in ways that absolutely do not work aesthetically. A truly bizarre offshoot of fast-fashion.
Lots of folking out there going into major debt just to own designer goods. They definitely seem to believe in the "dress for the job you want, not the job you have" thing, but usually work in dead-end jobs without any chance of career progression.
Judging by the interest in 'fashion reps', I would say it's very much a peer pressure issue, but one that extends far into adulthood for some folks.
That guy sounds genuine, but it gets weird when the very wealthy decide that dressing like 'regular people' is the style they want to go for. That's when you create a market for $250 pocket t-shirts and $600 denim jeans. Talk about not getting it!
To be fair, some more expensive clothes have a much better fit.
I have been buying $150 jeans most of my adult life and recently read a comment on Reddit that expressed disbelief that someone would pay more than $30 for a pair of jeans.
I'm one of those $30 jeans people. An old girlfriend once convinced me to try on a pair of $200 jeans ("you don't have to buy them, just try them on"). I did it just to shut her up and looked at myself wearing $200 jeans in the mirror. Fit exactly the same, material seemed better quality, stitching was the same, etc. Yes, better. But definitely not $170 better.
Then again, I think Levi's are overpriced these days.
He wasn't dressing like that for fun, but out of practicality anything to do with plumbing can be messy.
If I remember correctly, the agencies usual handyman wasn't available so he took it upon himself to come around and sort the problem. There was no obligation for him to do that he just wanted to be a decent landlord and respectful to one of his tenants. It's good business really as we loved there for years and respected his property just as he respected us as tenants.
In other places I've rented I've had absolute arseh*oles for landlords.
They wouldn't give you the time of day, but I bet their tenants were quick to move out! (I was)
Oh, they absolutely "get it." People quickly learn to dress for the occasion. When you go to a nephew's birthday party or something, you don't want to clue strangers in, so you take the Toyota and wear plain clothing. It's like a shibboleth, people who know what a $250 plain shirt looks like will get it, while everyone else is clueless.
Mmm, I'm not convinced. Generally speaking I think wealthy, business and even "custom-savvy" people - if you want to go that far - have enough business sense to realise paying $250 for a plain white shirt doesn't make any sense...
The shirt is expensive because A) they make them for a variety of body types, not just the generic S,M,L you'd find in most clothing stores and B) they are often sold at stores where a person is going to help you pick out something that looks good on your body and goes with your personal style. You're mostly paying for someone to do the thinking and work for you.
It makes plenty of sense to spend money to look good when aesthetics aren't your strong suit, but are important to you. People hire landscapers to make their houses look nice and appealing. This is the same thing, but for your body.
Stealth wealth. Nobody smart flauts value, they use subtle cues to let other valuable or simply well-studied people know. Nobody wants annoying low class (talking about having low class, not in a monetary sense) people trying to get something from them, talking, or worse -- mugging or following them. So many fools wearing expensive watches in cities getting their heads bashed. If you're not aggressively dating (even then who cares), why would you try to get a shallow ego stroke like that.
High quality perfectly fitted t shirt and pants/shorts with zero logos, that's what I'll splurge on if I ever get rich. And super comfy and effective shoes.
I'd like to agree, but the second multi millionaire you knew lived in one of the wealthiest neighbourhoods in London, and the first multi millionaire you dont know where he lived but has an expensive car and is likely the same.
I've always lived in cheap arsed neighbourhoods, my recent place is above average and it makes a lot of things easier - even if I dont really enjoy the boring corporate neighbours.
Mmm...yes it was an expensive car brand, but it is a common car in Africa because it's just so reliable, very rugged and also easy to repair. And it's not that expensive.
I don't really get that comparison. The current day Land Rover / Range Rovers are very different from "very rugged and easy to repair" ones of the past as they are basically SUVs now.
This might have been true for the Defender but not any more.
Land Rovers became a status signal because people with remote country homes that they kinda actually did need an off-road-capable car to reliably get to and from, would also drive them in the city sometimes, or in resort towns, or other visible places. People who had no actual use for them started imitating them and buying Land Rovers.
Then people a notch down from even that level of cluefulness caught on. Land Rover started making cars to cater to that market, which only cared about Land Rover because "it's a rich-people brand" but had no idea how they'd gotten that way, and just wanted a suburban SUV with Land Rover branding. I assume Land Rovers, at least newer ones, are now considered a bit embarrassing for at least the second group (the first wave of imitators).
Expensive yes. Reliable, dunno. I have an Audi, also a Volkswagen group car. It's fun, sporty, feels "expensive" but it has the worst reliability of all the cars I've owned, on par with Fiat. I use to joke that the four circles represent the amount spent on maintenance and repairs.
The association with the "cheap" brand is just a flimsy justification to be used by a bunch of Americans who drive 4Runners and Pilots (mostly, there's probably the odd Explorer in there) and have a desire to feel superior over people who "flaunt" their wealth or use it "irresponsibly".
All these vehicles cost in the same ballpark (or at least have large overlapping ranges) so roughly all the same people have access to them. It's not about status. It's about tribe signaling.
Sorry, I didn't give enough shits to realize we were comparing to the Range Rover and not Landrover SUVs generally. In that case the 4Runner was the wrong comparison point since the Range Rover more directly competes with the LX600 (86k MSRP). I'm not going to dig through the options lists to figure out where the discrepancy is.
My point still stands. Expensive Toyota SUV buying people like to shit on expensive European SUV buying people not because they are of substantially different means but because they are of substantially different tribes.
People who have a lot of money don't want to let other people who can rob them know they have a lot of money. They've gone past the point where virtue-signaling is important to them, and where having someone say "Nice shoes!" is no longer fun for them. They can always have the best shoes and it's no longer an acknowledgement of peers but acknowledgement of 'poor people'. 90% of rich white guys wear plain T-Shirts and jeans with all bird shoes, and try to virtue-signal with things like yachts and other ridiculous things.
Now redo the study, but IRL and with actual status clothes == high quality materials, perfect fit, nice flashy style (that means zero logos!).
I made this experiment: I have few really cheap suits (looking OK but that's it) and few very expensive suits. When I wear the cheap ones, people are normal with me. When I wear the expensive ones, people wearing normal clothes don't notice and people "in the know" (wearing expensive suits themselves) will start commenting on the quality of my materials, ask me about my tailor, etc - it's very obvious that it places me in their "friend" category immediately.
Having luxury brand logo on me would get me laughed out of that room - nobody has anything against cheap clothes but expensive clothes with logos are ridiculous to every actually rich person, it's like that meme with an adult trying to be cool among teenagers - and it makes total sense that other people don't like someone trying to level themselves above them by fakery, that's just like driving a fifth-hand Mercedes-Benz S-Klasse from 2010 and talking about the price it had when it was manufactured all the time (and complaining about gas prices in the same sentence).
What room are you getting laughed out of that is composed of normal people in normal clothes and also rich people in expensive suits, but who would laugh someone out of the room in a luxury brand?
This whole comment is bizarre to me, I'm not sure what to make of it. Who cares what is ridiculous to "actually rich people"? You realize they're also just people right, with their own biases and flaws?
I immediately distrust the judgment of anyone in the occidental world wearing stuff like what you mentioned (Big gaudy logos right on the thing). It's immediately obvious that they have a spending problem and poor taste, probably a cocaine addiction, and whatever else comes with that territory.
Anywhere south of Texas or the Mediterranean and you just look like you buy a lot of bootleg stuff, though. You're likely to see your uncle come around one day in a fake supreme shirt and he's like 50 and there's barely any irony in it because he didn't just drop a couple of hundred dollars on it, it was probably on sale for 2$
Ok, but move to Los Angeles and re-try that experiment.
In some environments here, I’d argue being spotted wearing a Rolex in a non-business context would get you laughed out of the room by those wearing the latest YSL shoes, Givenchy pants, and Botega Veneta belts. Sounds bizarre, right?
Like all cultural phenomenons, fashion and the status that goes along with is absolutely regional, and very much dependent on which communities you associate with.
Wealthy people are 1% of the population. If only wealthy people like you more when you wear flashy clothes, it says almost nothing about whether people in general like you more. If you wear a purple suit and an ostrich feather in your hat, pimps will like you more.
I talked about that - people not wearing expensive clothes themselves usually don't notice my expensive suit at all, so there's no influence. Sometimes people do notice, but I never had a negative experience out of it.
The reason I mention that is because it just seems like your comment is about how exquisite your taste is, and I couldn't see any relationship with the article.
In certain circumstances you are much more likely to be meeting with wealthy people. In those cases, perhaps clothing that gives a bad impression on average will actually give a good impression.
The relationship is that actual status clothes won't make people less likely to cooperate with you, it's just these ridiculous wannabe ones that will and for other reasons than implied.
Torontonian here, there's a market for brands like LV/Hermes and others to basically splatter their full logo across the articles of clothing/accessories. People do buy this stuff. You know who. I'm sure it exists in other countries. It strikes me the same as you - it looks ridiculous and in my eyes devalues the brand that they would go to the degree to produce something so gauche. But, here we are.
Maybe we're just oldschool and we aren't in with the new kids. I've always preferred as few logos or brand signals as possible. Materials, aesthetics can speak for themselves. I order my cars de-badged from the getgo.
I noticed that people who buy these usually pay with their golden credit cards and their expensive SUVs have license plates with a leasing firm brand on it (I'm in EU, leasing is not usual)...
I mean, another commenter said this class of buyers is class-anxious and class-confused. That seems absolutely true to me - these people can't actually afford this stuff. The actually rich people I know don't have golden credit cards (they have the levels above and never show it) and don't drive expensive cars (most have no cars nowadays, on-demand rent is better).
I was having this talk the other day: I hate "high end" logo clothes and don't want to compete with people that showcase their logo clothes.
The average clothing store is decent enough for me. I would buy clothes with no distinctive marks if I could find them. Just plain material and colors.
I've worn a 'uniform' based around Uniqlo's long sleeved tees for about 15 years now and I've noticed the quality drop off remarkably over the past few years.
A shirt will barely last a few months now, whilst I still occasionally wear a [much be-holed] first generation from way back when and it's kept its size, shape and still feels soft. New ones shrink and feel crunchy after a few washes. Oh, and they're about twice the price. Inflation, I guess.
Many comments here praise Uniqlo and for years I also bought all 'my uniform', my short sleeve shirts there (guess I live in a warmer climate). But now I got the same feeling as you have. The shirts that I bought a few weeks ago are really different and I finally decided I need to find an alternative.
Haven’t bought clothes from them in a while because they last so long but the “line” matters too. My standard cotton ones are starting break but the suprima cotton ones are still going strong 4 years later.
Lands end has decent stuff imo. I like their "tailored fit" super-t. Some of the colors are bad but they fit me well I think. I don't know if their pants are any good. I just get Levis.
More than 80% of my wardrobe is from Uniqlo, including 10 dry pique polos, 20 supima cotton tees, and 10 flannel button ups, all black. Makes getting dressed in the morning stress-free because I know I'm going to like how I look every day. The blacks do not fade — I have 5-year-old shirts that look practically as good as 6-month-old ones.
Their jeans, especially their selvedge jeans, are also high quality and priced well. Same for my winter parka, vests, fleeces, shorts, socks, underwear.
Uniqlo selvedge denim is really good, I wear it a lot. Most US brand 'jeans' (Levis etc) are just cotton pants in a jeans cut. If you tear them on a nail or cut them the hole will spread and fray - real denim does not do this and the uniqlo pants are cut well for my body type, last for ages and when damaged the hole stays small.
You have to pay hundreds for genuine denim Levis which puts them in the fashion pretentious class imo.
I'm definitely in full dad mode at this point. I've resisted New Balances thus far, but I can see them peeking out over the horizon, a massive iceberg into which I'll inevitably crash.
Some of the surfer brands like Volcom, Reef, Lost etc sell wovens with little tiny logos on the pocket you can remove with a thread-ripper. I think that's not rare, though. Pretty sure you can even remove logos from some of the jeans. I guess I should also probably plug the lightweight pants from Club Monaco that I'm wearing right now because I don't see a logo on them. MUJI is also nice and unlabeled, still Japanese sensibility but a little more eclectic (their linen pillowcases are great).
Same for me. It took me some time to find a brand that doesn't dazzle everybody with their logo, uses the fabric and design that suits me, is durable enough and so on. I place a substantial order and forget about clothing for a few years.
Their shirts are good, yes. I have several pairs of their chino shorts though and those do not hold up long term, to the point where I’m looking for alternatives that’ll last a bit longer.
They also, crucially, have sizing beyond just S/M/L et c. but within each they have regular (fat) slim (kinda fat—this is me) and tall. I think I've even seen tall-slim and maybe one other size on there (do they have a Trim size for people who are actually skinny, or is that another brand I'm thinking of?)
That's a must for getting a decent fit for off-the-rack clothes. Even t-shirts.
Plus, they don't even put logos on their polos, which is the one place that actually-nice clothes can get away with a logo. They're not the best-constructed, but they're not terrible, and no logo. BB's polos are better-made and use nicer material but when I wear them I feel like a douche because of the stupid embroidered sheep logo. I think both favor tennis-tail though, which sucks if you like to wear them untucked.
I'm a huge fan of their hoodies, that's the first thing I ever bought! I probably would have mentioned it if it was hoodie-wearing season where I live but those have been tucked away for a few months already.
The concept is good, checked them out some years ago, but afaik the execution should be better. Scandis don't have an eye for fabric, except Denim. Often too smooth / shiny / plasticky or bland.
I really wish there were affordable clothes in Asket spirit but with fabrics Italian premium brand would choose.
I am looking into buying stuff from them, I would also love some feedback. I just wants simple pants that fit, this seems to be a difficult requirement to fulfil.
I make a point of either removing or covering logos on my clothing and accessories when I can't find unbranded options. A seam ripper is useful for removing sewn-on patch style logos. For embroidered or embossed logos, I often sew on a Cascadian flag patch - all of my backpacks and utility bags have them!
I thought you said Canadian flag patch and I remembered back in the 80s hearing about friends traveling in Europe who would sew Canadian flag patches on their backpacks to hide the fact that they were from the US.
My dad talks about backpacking through Europe in the early 60's as an American and it's all open doors and family dinners in every little town.
My experience more recently is that people seem to be aware that an American traveling abroad probably agrees with most of their criticisms and they're just curious about what it's really like here.
And here I thought I was the only one wielding a seam-ripper to this end. However, my patch for covering embroidered logos advertises Weyland-Yutani. I figure if you're going to shill for a company, it might as well be The Company.
Also, for excellent quality, US-made clothes with unobtrusive and easily-removed logos, you can't go wrong with https://www.american-giant.com/ .
I do that too all the time. A downside though is that you risk ripping the material, especially with knitted shirts. I've done that only a couple of times over the years, so it is not a big loss.
Maybe they understand fashion and have different goals than you.
Some people want their fashion to make them blend in. Some people want their fashion to make them stand out. That doesn't mean one misunderstands it and one doesn't.
My partner wanted some new running trainers. She went to a popular
high-street store here in the UK called JD Sports and said to the
assistant "I'm looking for some new running shoes". In a bizarre fit
of honesty the lady said:
"Sorry we don't really do running gear here, we sell more fashion
items."
I'm sure her manager would have been appalled to overhear it, though
perhaps the assistant is into sports herself and made an honest
distinction between quality sports gear and the logo-heavy branded
items in the store.
there was some article from New Yorker or NYTimes – with a quick google search I can't seem to find it at the moment.
but the thesis was basically: sports wear has often influenced mainstream fashion since even like 100 years ago.
but in each generation, people find it initially shocking to see so many people wearing what is marketed and made for sportswear for leisure, or even seeing it spill into the workplace. i think the article was focusing on leggings when they started creeping into non-sports-related settings.
one of the craziest counter-examples i've seen, from the anecdote you share about your partner, was when i saw a man dressed to the nines in a really sharp/ smart business suit, looking like he had a great haircut. but for his kicks, he was rocking Nike Vaporfly 2's, which are known to only have so much life in their foam specialized for distance racing. i personally didn't think it looked at all aesthetically pleasing, but because they were relatively expensive for running shoes, i'm guessing that the man decided to pair them with his high fashion look.
> made for sportswear for leisure, or even seeing it spill into the workplace
Hopefully you are young enough to have been spared the indignity of
witnessing a plague of fluorescent legwarmers and sweatbands escape
the aerobics gyms of the 1980s. :)
> but in each generation, people find it initially shocking to see so many people wearing what is marketed and made for sportswear for leisure, or even seeing it spill into the workplace. i think the article was focusing on leggings when they started creeping into non-sports-related settings.
A lot of modern casual and even business-casual fashion is (or was) sports wear.
Polo shirts? Explicitly designed for tennis—it's the reason the design exists. Pure sportswear.
Oxford-cloth button-downs? Sports wear. That's why it's got the buttons to keep the collar down, and why the cloth is so heavy-weight and rugged.
Rugby shirts? Jerseys? Of course.
Sneakers, of course. Also, many other shoe designs, from equestrian and hunting sports.
What's not sports wear is often former underwear. T-shirts and A-shirts (thought the latter remain very informal, at least) were/are underwear. Arguably leggings are underwear that (somehow—this trend remains baffling to me, but on the other hand, I mean, thank god for it, obviously) became sports wear and then became everyday casual wear.
> i personally didn't think it looked at all aesthetically pleasing, but because they were relatively expensive for running shoes, i'm guessing that the man decided to pair them with his high fashion look.
I'll sometimes do this sort of thing when I travel. Lot easier to travel light when you don't need a separate pair of running shoes.
As you get into the really expensive design stuff from brands, logos disappear. And of course, the people who buy the expensive stuff consider the cheaper stuff to be barbarian.
The expensive stuff still bears the trademark of the brand, the lead designer, or the collection. It's more subtle, but ultimately the reason why people buy it. And some brands really just sell the logo at a high price, like Hermes or Louis Vuitton.
The prominent-luxury-logo-branded stuff is marketed to Fussell's Middle—his class defined by being the most class-anxious and also the most class-confused, so always aiming to elevate themselves, then fucking it up. Like, by falling for this kind of marketing, so failing to signal the way they intended, and instead placing themselves firmly and obviously outside the group they're trying to imitate.
> I would buy clothes with no distinctive marks if I could find them.
Find a local tailor. Pick the fabrics you want from a catalog. Get your clothes made for your body while supporting someone's small business and artistic craft.
They're almost always sewn on as pre-made patches nowadays, at least in my area. I will forgive the clothier a printed patch but yes the fabric manufacturer's must be woven.
>> I would buy clothes with no distinctive marks if I could find them. Just plain material and colors.
The irony being that actual "high-class" clothing is exactly what you're describing, at least since I've been a lucid adult. Seems like there is a bit of an inverse correlation between a person's income and the amount of logos they'll tolerate on their clothing.
> I would buy clothes with no distinctive marks if I could find them.
Where do you shop and how do you dress? Most "corporate wear" mall brands (think Banana Republic, j-crew, brooks bros) sell clothes without logos. If you're into boring casual, Target sells racks of plain colored t-shirts and pants.
Seconding uniqlo, especially if you're on the thinner side. Indochino is great too, but can lean a little flashy.
Most people only think of military surplus and maybe don't want that
sort of gear. But if you want super quality, plain "grey-man" gear
like top-quality cotton polo shirts, very hard-wearing smart trousers
there's a whole world of surplus brokers who take government contract
overspill and whatnot.
I really like nice sportswear due to the materials, they’re just comfortable to wear. Unfortunately everything seems to require a Nike or Adidas logo somewhere on the clothing. I don’t even play sports! Anyone have recommendations for similar clothing but without the logos?
I like them and wear them but get the logos removed by eg a seamstress, it's very cheap like 3 dollars. Crocodiles especially, I removed one myself but it took like 3 hours. They're on super tight.
If you want me to wear cloths with your logo on them, YOU must pay ME. I'm not going to pay you to wear your advertising.
This perhaps that comes from my days in top-level but obscure amateur/pro sports, but if I'm wearing a logo, it's from one of my sponsors, certainly not some competing brand, and I see no reason this shouldn't also apply to regular life.
I'll buy your stuff it it is good, but for me to advertise it by wearing a blatant logo you must pay me (the amount is up for discussion, but not the principle).
They were doing the same with car wraps, and again, if I support the produce and the pay is enough I'll wrap my car, but I'm sure AF not paying you to do it. Same with clothes.
Pretty much any shirt or hoodie or jacket you’re going to find in common stores will have a brand logo on it. If there’s no logo, at least it sports some random gibberish (New Mexico Surf Club ‘86).
I’m also from camp „not your free advertising estate“, and it’s difficult to find plain or ad-free clothes at times. Unless you’re strictly into suits, that is.
What? All of those branded T-shirts, hoodies/jumpers, blue jeans that have logos embroidered, printed, stitched on to them doesn't ring a bell?
All of the sports people do it. Nike swoosh. Adidas symbol. Kappa's posed back-to-back figures, etc. Abecrombie & Fitch's giant A&F on every thing. Ball caps with logos. None of this sounds vaguely familiar?
It actually took me a minute to figure out what OP meant. I think it depends a lot on where you shop. And even somewhere like Wal-Mart, there's plenty of clothing available that doesn't have prominent branding and isn't "legible" clothing. I don't think finding men's clothing without branding is at all difficult, and it's actually easier the higher end you go.
Yeah, I guess it depends on location to some degree. In Europe, the cheap mainstream would be H&M and Zara, neither of which puts logos on things.
Above that, you're wearing a dress shirt, which never ever has a logo. Adidas and the like is strictly worn only by people who have lost control of their lives.
> Nike swoosh. Adidas symbol. Kappa's posed back-to-back figures, etc. Abecrombie & Fitch's giant A&F on every thing. Ball caps with logos. None of this sounds vaguely familiar?
That is expensive trash, not fashion. If I go to a nice restaurant in a big city, people aren't wearing that crap.
I like to wear nice clothes at work. I feel good in them and it is my way of being respectful to the workplace.
I probably carry this too far when traveling. I have very light weight traveling sport coats and slacks - all washable in a hotel room and lots of hidden pockets (TravelSmith is a favorite brand). Sometimes it pays off big: when my wife and I were traveling around Central America with a buddy of mine and his wife, my friend just packed tshirts, shorts, and sandals. Every time we walked into a restaurant to eat, his wife complemented me on looking so nice. This bugged my friend, and if we can’t irritate our friends, then what is the joy in life :-) Seriously though, it just feels respectful to be nicely dressed when entering restaurants and people’s homes when traveling.
The article's title is "Showing off your status and wealth makes you seem less co-operative", and the title here on HN is absolutely wrong.
I like wearing flashy clothes myself, and I would even say it has proven advantageous to cooperation in my line of work, so I was curious about this article. However, nowhere is it stated that flashy clothes make people less likely to cooperate with you. They say wearing clothes with luxury logos and signal high status does.
According to the article, the study entailed using avatars with or without luxury logos branded on clothing.
Suits can be luxury goods, but the study didn't explore that. It's unclear at a glance if this was actually about status given the methods. There could be other reasons people don't favor corporate-branded clothing, considering that wealthy people don't just wear polos with big corporate logos on them. Maybe it telegraphs poor taste, or that boosting luxury companies makes it seem like you're trying too hard to show that you have money (I make a distinction between this and someone who plainly looks high-status owing to their choice of wear). The obvious thing to include would have been avatars with non-luxury brands, it's possible that would have repelled as well.
On the other hand, every piece of heavily-branded clothing could be considered "luxury" in its own way and the only difference is social class, demographics. In low-culture you'll see Crooks and Castles, Fox Racing, Adidas, etc
One case where that works against people is sales. For example, we had a sales rep for some software we use that would always show up with gaudy gold rings on almost every finger, an obviously-5-figure watch, high end suit, etc.
It sent a pretty strong signal to us that their margins and commissions had a lot of room to negotiate down. I suspect we negotiated harder with this organization than we would have otherwise, looked for opportunities to reduce usage, and so on. Not solely because of the wealthy display, but I'm sure it played some part.
Pretty sure the guy knew exactly what he was doing. First, the fact you were negotiating means he already got over the first step, which is simply to engage in a negotiation at all. Then he set himself up so that your team felt you could push extra-hard, resulting in a discount you all probably high-fived about. So he sets his initial price above his peers and even with your super discount you ended up at the same price as everybody else. Or maybe you did pay less... it's software! Marginal cost = pennies. Cheesy sales guy still made a fat commission.
I was told it is never a faux pas to show up over dressed, but it is to be under dressed. If you look like a pimp, that's one thing. Showing up in a nice pair of pants and shirt when everyone else is in shorts and t-shirts is different.
So like wearing a tuxedo to a job interview is kosher? It’s not wearing a pimp outfit, but surely there are so many examples of wearing inappropriate fancy clothes that you can’t really say that it’s never possible to overdress.
If that's the spirit in which you want to take this conversation then, yes, absolutely, show up to a job interview in a tux. If you're applying any where other than Downton Abbey, then you get what you deserve for taking the conversation in this direction
Can you help me get on track by sharing what you mean by its never a faux pas to show up overdressed? That’s the part that just seems quite surprising to me in my experience. I would say it’s just as easy to show up over as under dressed in an awkward way, rather than something that can never happen.
Ah ok, I had somehow misread your comment as saying it is never a faux pas to show up over dressed. Thanks for the clarification, that makes way more sense!
Sure it is. In the tech world at least, a lot of people will judge you negatively if you are a programmer and wear a business suit to an interview at a tech firm
Right, this is reinforced by understanding that also many brands are not recognized by most people but are respected enough by the people that matter, and so could not disrupt cooperation.
I refuse to wear or display any corporate logo, even if I generally like the company or its products. I buy unbranded clothing. When I can't get something unbranded (like a decent parka), I remove or obliterate the logo. I covered the apple on my phone and computer with electrical tape, even though I've been a Mac user for nearly 30 years.
I am not a billboard. I reject status and status seeking behavior. I refuse to help corporations with their marketing and promotion. I wouldn't even do it if they paid me because I am against advertising. It's all manipulative and depraved and it promotes status and class.
T-shirts fall into three categories: vintage, new, and unacceptable, with the latter category compromising the bulk of the world’s supply. Within each category lies another, more precise subset of rules and rankings. Make no mistake, this is complicated.
The most prized t-shirt category is vintage. As shown earlier, white people need authenticity like they need oxygen and to have an original vintage t-shirt from the 1970s or 1980s is a very powerful social status symbol. The ideal shirt will have a funny logo, a year attached to it, and will be as thin as rice paper. In the event that two white people have shirts that meet this criteria, the superior ranking is given to the person who paid the least for the shirt. Acquiring a shirt at a vintage clothing store is seen as less respectable than sorting through racks at the Goodwill.
The second category of t-shirt is new and there really are only two options. The first is American Apparel, a company that constantly reminds you it is based in downtown Los Angeles. They are considered an acceptable white company since they produce things that are very simple, but also very expensive. The second acceptable new shirt is Threadless. This Chicago-based company produces artistic and funny t-shirts that are acceptable for concerts, Whole Foods and 80s night. White people like these shirts so much because they are designed by white people, for white people. Sort of like a white FUBU.
Finally, and perhaps the most important to be aware of, is the unacceptable category of t-shirts. There are a few simple rules to follow in order to avoid wearing the wrong t-shirt. First, if it’s made of a stiff, thick cotton, throw it in the garbage immediately. White people t-shirts must be made of the softest, finest organic cotton. This is law. Unless it is vintage, the shirt cannot be made in a foreign country (unless you can certify its labor conditions). The shirt cannot contain a current sports logo. Shirts with sports logos are acceptable, but they must contain a logo that hasn’t been used in 15 years. Last and not least, it cannot be baggy. Your t-shirt must be tight-fitting for both style and mating purposes.
True, even attempts to avoid attention can paradoxically bring attention. I'm not really motivated by how others see me. My basic intent is to remove as many logos and commercial messages from my life as possible.
With the MacBook, it really depends on how the blocking is done. If I put more effort into it and cover the entire lid very carefully I could make it look very unassuming. I'm content to just slap a piece of tape over the logo and be done. It's a game to me. I get pleasure out of blocking or fighting even the tiniest examples of corporate persuasion in my life.
Any kind of self-promotion is unpleasant, except to other self-promoters. For them its competitive. And yes, this includes the virtue emojis on Twitter and GitHub.
I live in South Florida, a little bit above Miami, and work out of this little co-working space. A couple weeks ago, a new member joined, and after talking with him a bit, I learned that he had worked on the founding team for some very famous technology (don't want to name it publicly). So pretty impressive, but the guy is down to earth and humble about it, which I really respected.
Some other people in the space (non-technical people) thought it was weird that he wasn't more outspoken about his accomplishments, and they even went so far as to doubt that he was heavily involved.
As an introvert, to hear people dismiss someone on the basis of them not boasting about themselves really stuck with me. I just can't express how vulgar I find that viewpoint, and my opinion of the people who dismissed the guy has changed irrevocably.
I think the key to being happy as an introvert is not depending on the approval and adoration of others for your accomplishments. If you do, you're going to be bitter and toxic over not getting it when you feel you should.
For sure. I bet the guy wouldn't care if he knew they were dismissing him behind his back. But still, it made me angry because there's this whole "networking" culture down here, and it's all very superfluous and scammy.
Now imagine those people being recruiters, bosses and other gate keepers with considerable power over careers. It's dangerous to be a humble introvert in a world that's anything but.
I've been in managerial role for a while now, so I can appreciate the "other side", as a recruiter/interviewer. It's hard because you're having to make judgement calls with very limited information, so I can easily empathize.
But as a recruiter or boss, the onus is on me to suss out the data I need. Given that introverted people have always existed and will always exist, it would be ignorant and lazy of me to only pick from the crop that puts themselves in the spotlight for me. Not to mention the very obvious fact that a lot of people are very good at selling themselves, even when they have nothing to offer.
Because this person has made an irrevocable judgement on the way people performed because of their judgement based on how another person performed. For the very thing he was criticising them about: judging based on appearance of the situation the reality of it, he has done the same to them, but even worse, with explicit malice! I can't really imagine how someone could think they are the good guy in this situation
Finding distaste in other peoples sayings is not malice.
EDIT: I would agree with the post you were referring to, if someone were to judge me based on my boasting I'd rather not work with them because I'd have to put much effort into working around them misjudging me.
That's pretty unnecessarily negative/uncharitable. I know people (usually older) who are perfectly un-self-interested and unconditionally sympathetic to all people who use "virtue emojis" very innocently/sincerely on their social media. All you have is the word of my anecdote, but these individuals are not engaging in self-promotion (unless one expansively defines it to include all unprovoked expressions of thought/opinion). These same people wouldn't be caught dead wearing flashy, "fashionable" clothing, or otherwise self-promoting in the spirit of competition.
Then this is not the kind of person i would enjoy hanging around. In my social circles, when you show of any kind of virtue without delivering, you are mocked, and in my opinion, rightfully so.
I constantly wear clothes with logos such as : O'Reilly, Slackware, Debian, FSF, Postgresql... do you think it makes people less likely to cooperate? :)
Yes, but authenticity as value signaling, not as a commitment to behave without unnecessary layers.
I lived in a meditation center for a year, and I saw some people there that claimed to be authentic, and worked to look like the stereotype. But they were actually hiding a desire for materialism and the failure to live up to it behind the apparent choice of rejecting it.
Style and looks is just what it is, a shell. And some people use clothing to augment what they are lacking in their character. And smart people can see through that.
Flashy, but not if it's clean and professional. No bling or bright orange sneakers.
I worked with a gentleman once. He was a tall, handsome, intelligent manhattanite. Very pleasant to communicate with. He told me a story of how he was wearing some very simple clothing after running in Central Park at lunch - sweat pants and a vest. Someone later mistook him for a delivery boy. And on the opposite end, when he wears a suit, he is treated like a total VIP.
Do not underestimate the power of presentation and projection of success.
I get treated strikingly different by virtually everyone I meet when I'm wearing a just run of the mill suit[1] than when I'm wearing casual clothes. It's worth noting though, that the basic suit is meant to be subdued and even many very nice suits[2] aren't exactly flashy, they just fit together perfectly and look like they were made for you. I do wonder how much the typical person can tell the difference nowadays.
[1] From one of the online made to measure outfits for a few hundred bucks.
[2] The kind where you get a lot of quality time with your tailor from the start to the end of the process. These will run you into four figures to start.
I think this is why I get along so well with construction workers. As far as my personal presentation goes, I definitely look more like a carpeneter than a sysadmin on any given day.
People wearing flashy/status clothes are very cooperative. They are willing to walk around with logo's, advertising brands. While a sandwich man gets paid for such a job, the people wearing flashy/status clothes pay lots of money to do this kind of work.
a lot of salt in these comments about fashion logo wear, which I mostly agree with, but what about band shirts? I'm strictly band shirts and have been for like 20 years. if there's one thing I'll freely advertise its the music that I like, and wearing the right shirt at the right time can bring happiness to and lead to some interesting interactions with peers and strangers alike.
gone are the days of casual Friday so dress for success and rep your favorite music today
People are real salty here. Yeah, being a walking billboard is pretty silly, but what if we like the way the logo looks? There's a reason The Misfits are more successful with merch than music: because people like to wear stuff with awesome skulls on it. Take your designer nonsense and give me cool logos any day.
While I may agree with the study's conclusions, the first line struck me as extremely biased and unscientific:
"People who can afford luxury goods tend to buy them, and to show them off."
In my experience, that's a crap shoot - some do, some don't. It also begs the question - what's a "luxury good" vs one that lasts longer, has more utility, etc?
Is it the little Lacoste alligator that sets people off? "How dare they spend $100 on a shirt just to piss me off!"
I don't care much for your plain t-shirt with a fuck all Patagonia logo on the chest, but if I decided to not cooperate with that person, I'd have been out of a job by now.
I got a bunch of fake Supreme, Gucci and Versace one time cause I thought it was hilarious and I needed some fresh threads after sweating out most of my clothes being at the beach that weekend for the same night. After I got all these compliments from people on my clothes when I returned to North America like wow isn't that shirt 200$... Someone STOLE THE FAKE SUPREME SHIRT!!!
Like... I got that for 5$ at a bus station in Latin America and all those shirts fell apart within a year anyways.
I also remember going to a club wearing that supreme shirt and this other older guy had a fake supreme shit that just said "millennials" in the red bar instead which was great. He just kept on giving me the stink eye. His shirt was admittedly 10x better
I had a phase when I would wear expensive clothes. I thought that this way I would show the world that I am someone. You know an ego boost. But then I realised that almost nobody really cares and those people who care about these things are not the people I would like to be associated with.
Then when realise that this expensive piece of clothing is actually cheap and made by near slave workers somewhere in a third world country, you realise that you actually look stupid in those clothes.
Since then I only care if the clothing is made of good material and preferably in my own country - but this is not a given - it may say it's made in my country, but it could have been made in Asia but without tags.
My fashion tip if you’re a somewhat attractive 18-34 man: look at what unisex styles are fashionable among young women and try to recreate the look from the mens section.
You’ll have an outfit that looks sharp, and you can avoid a lot of the “$200 plain shirt with a logo” bullshit.
I don't think it's necessarily a good assumption that people treat self-chosen avatar representations the same way they'd treat an actual human. It is common for people to use avatars in a type of expression that they wouldn't do in real life, and the participants may have been affected by this.
i.e. Avatars are free, fungible in quality, and those who choose those symbols they may be signaling an aspiration for these symbols. Rather than signaling an achievement for wealth or an appreciation for luxury, it may be signaling a desperation for wealth. Would the people who can actually afford luxury goods plaster those symbols on their avatars?
Actual article headline is, "Showing off your status and wealth makes you seem less co-operative." "Flashy" and "status clothes" are words/phrases that don't even appear in the article.
The actual content of the study just refers to logos for the clothing parts.
> The results showed that participants elected to co-operate with partners whose avatars had unbranded clothing 57% of the time, but when the avatar sported a luxury logo, this figure dropped to 45%.
> A second study, in which participants could first choose the design of their own avatar, found that those who chose branded rather than unbranded clothing themselves were still less likely to choose to co-operate with partners with brand-boasting vs logo-free avatars.
HN posting guidelines are also well-known amongst participants here, so people call out when a title breaks a guideline and breaks it for the specific reason the guideline exists for: reducing ambiguity.
I know some folks that own a successful clothing company. The wife is one of the top designers in the field. She's won all kinds of accolades, and is respected by the top people in the world (but not well-known, outside the industry).
They wear expensive clothes, but it's not noticeable, unless you really look. I suppose they "put on the ritz," when they go to industry events, but I don't attend those.
Some of the humblest, most down-to-earth folks I've ever known.
There are plenty of high quality, somewhat responsibly produced brands, that are highish priced but would never qualify as flashy (sunspel, l'estrange, common project, ...). They are also not what the article is talking about I guess, since they carry basically zero brand recognition.
I think what people might be missing here is that there are $60 unbranded T-Shirts and $300 jeans.
If you have even a mild eye for clothing you would still be able to see that they are not just a hanes shirt with levis. Casual fashion is a thing too.
a study of people putting status symbols on online avatars made them less likely to be cooperated with to perform menial tasks is what it actually says
On the other hand, not signalling your status will make some people feel entitled to disrespect you or treat you in a patronising way, due to their skewed social perception. Try attending some business dinner with regular clothes, to name an example. Some people out there are dying to buy the clothes you could buy but couldn't care less about.
Except for use of logos, it's interesting to look at this through the lens of upcoming Burning Man.
This line caught my eye...
> ...when a group that participants wanted to join stressed its desire for co-operative, prosocial people — the participants tended to become strategically modest...
In some camps and groups at least, cooperative and prosocial people are what you want. And in theory that's what the larger Burning Man experience is/can be. There are some pretty chill camps I've been in where very unassuming people are actually very fascinating individuals with very intriguing lives.
But at the same time, costumes and clothing are part of the fun. People wear some wild stuff. That said, there is clearly a boundary you can step over with clothing that will create a very negative reaction. Think feather headdress, sequins, etc. Think so called "influencers" trying to get their next photo shoot out to Instagram.
If a company wants me to advertise their brand by wearing their logo, they can come negotiate a contract with me. Why else would I want to be a walking billboard? I assume people who wear such things are 1: terribly insecure, and B: terrible negotiators.
This is surprisingly unexpected to me given that we know how the _opposite_ is true if you replace "wearing flash clothes" with "being pretty". Perhaps there's something to be said about natural beauty vs artificial beauty?
This puts me off. If I Google how much the corporation is paying the workers on average and then see flashy office, expensive suits and workers make average sums... I mean why not pay that money to the worker? I don't understand.
In addition to the use of still photos, this study has a problem in that dress is indicated to the subjects before they make a choice that is distilled down to trust, and the choice game is known to test trust by a substantial portion of the public. While it makes some intuitive sense to appear disarming to win the trust of strangers in some real-life contexts, I wouldn’t rely on this study to corroborate that.
I wonder if something similar applies to cars; anecdotally, people seem less likely to let a shiny Audi Q7 merge compared to an old Skoda or something.
The first two studies don't seem like they lead to this conclusion at all. Someone choosing luxury branded clothes on a virtual avatar is completely different from actually wearing luxury branded clothes.
The third study regarding social media would be interesting if I had access to it. But I'm still wondering if this translates to in person communication.
Except with Patagonia which made the decision to no longer supply these items as the recognized they were becoming a part of the uniform for finbros[0].
This reminds me of US Polo and GAP. Their logo keeps getting bigger and bigger on the clothes. I like the Japanese Brand, Muji[1], which has no logo, nor markings at all on their products.
In the fashion buying world, high end brands will force stockists to buy a certain number of units of the logo crap (tees etc) in order to get units of the more desirable/unique seasonal pieces. FWIW, as someone who leans toward a lot of high end, most of the work of shopping is wading through that junk.
Flashy/ status clothes are valuable to the extent that they are a reliable and costly signal of wealth.
The experimental design had participants believe the branded (virtual avatar) clothes were acquired at zero cost, making them useless as a signal of wealth.
Great, now all the supervisor-management-efficiency-productivity-optimization junkies have a perfect reason to mandate uniforms in workplaces that don't require a uniform. Way to go.
Could be, but as someone who get lower body pains and injuries (ankles and knees mostly) and lower back fatigue relatively often (from exercising), I do prefer brands that are rooted in actually athletic use rather than purely design/looks.
Maybe it's just placebo but I feel like they're going to be more comfortable and give me better posture/support.
A friend from the fashion industry's distilled and mostly-verbatim wisdom:
Learn what expensive fabric feels like. Have a friend buy you 4 price tiers of clothing with the exact same fabric composition; try them on blindfolded. Focus on fabric only, not fit. At some price point you will stop feeling a difference. There's no reason to pay for what you can't feel.
A 100-dollar shirt tailored for 30 dollars exceeds a 500-dollar shirt in appearance but not in feel.
A hoodie is a hoodie at any price point.
All denim looks identical. Jeans that are the exception to this rule usually come from smaller makers, usually cost over 250 dollars, and usually last 5 to 7 years, and will look best midway through its life when the way in which the threads wear betrays its quality, like a proper Persian rug.
A 200-dollar suit is like a paper bag, no matter your tailor.
Your tailor is your shirt's second-best friend. Your shirt's best friend is diet and exercise.
If you dress too similarly to your colleagues, you are a school of fish. If you dress too differently, you are a shark, or a squid, or some other thing. Neither of these is a great idea.
Never mention the brand of your clothing. Ever. Seriously.
A logo is a brand's way of forcing you to mention them.
And finally, my favorite:
Look on the street. Nearly everyone is wearing something boring. And everyone got up in the morning and looked in the mirror and thought, "this is okay." If you saw one of my models walking along the street before we shoot, they would be the same! — except they're wearing beauty, also. But nobody believes buying the clothes could ever make you look that way. So that can't be what we're selling, no? What we are doing is taking a beautiful human and deciding what furniture to place them on, how to adjust their posture and expression, what country we'll be in, the exact hour of day, whether our photographer makes it all seem triumphant or melancholy or joyful or pensive. There must be some art to it, or everyone on the street would walk around looking as though they are moving from frame to frame in a series of friezes, and no one would pay me. You even know you are buying a fantasy from me, don't you? [Sure.] And can you tell me what that fantasy is? Not beauty... even the model's beauty is in service to, the idea that for a moment, everything in life falls into this perfect kind of space, some harmony... So to be stylish is to both take all this constantly in the same moment you appear that these things do not even exist to you — that you are as you might find a bird perched in a tree, just being, and meanwhile God smiled a beautiful poetry upon you. But I am guessing this is not the recommendation you were looking for.
Years later I worked with a guy, a multi-millionaire, the guy lives in one of the wealthiest neighbourhoods in London. Again dressed in a normal pair of jeans and t-shirt, nothing too noteworthy. I remember him telling me how dry and boring his neighbours are, too concerned with 'things'. When he wants to go for a pint rather than go to his local, he heads to the less well off area a few streets over to the pub there and enjoys the company of normal people.
From these and other experiences I've come to think that the more you look, and act, like you've 'got money' the less you actually have.