
Goldman Sachs, Patagonia, and the Mysteries of “Business Casual” - mooreds
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/on-and-off-the-avenue/goldman-sachs-patagonia-and-the-mysteries-of-business-casual
======
leroy_masochist
This essay is trying to take something pretty simple and extrapolate a whole
bunch of deep metaphysical meaning.

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

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

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

~~~
skizm
> SV dress like slobs

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

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

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

------
nabla9
In the book "Bill Gates Speaks" there is funny old story about negotiations
between Microsoft and IBM.

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

~~~
hef19898
That remembers me of the one occasion I showed up at meeting with a supplier
in shorts and flip-flops. Things is, that was during summer at 30+° C the
office dress code up to Directors. And than I forgot the meeting. When I was
reminded by outlook it was too late. Still kind of funny to be there in the
meeting room and sitting opposite a bunch of guys in suites and ties sweating
their a __ __of.

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
0xADEADBEE
I don't dare ask why you can't just change the A/C!

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

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

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

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

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

[https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2741](https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2741)

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

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

------
wDcBKgt66V8WDs
I like the article and totally get it, agree with it to the extent that
agreeing makes sense here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
Mikeb85
It's both. They make some serious outdoor gear, some more casual wear, it is
high quality, but it's also Patagucci. I've seen people who take it on week
long hikes (as you said, it's high end outdoor wear), and you see bros wearing
it downtown.

~~~
Consultant32452
Around here is all The North Face over Patagonia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
yardie
> dressing down further on Fridays

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
zeveb
> Anyway, I always practised dress-up Friday.

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

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

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

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

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

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

------
mdo123
I used to work at a big bank, and would just wear nice dress shirt/dress
pants. Whenever I saw a "vest" guy I would think 1) you guys really all look
the same, and 2) aren't your arms cold and your torso hot?

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

The dress code is way harder than in banking.

------
jolfdb
This was the topic of The Submarine

paulgraham.com/submarine.html

------
blunte
Once in a rare while we come upon such a lavishly adjective-laden expression
of literary peacockery wrapped in the unassuming guise of a common news item.

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

~~~
nl
This is _The New Yorker_. It's not news, it's social commentary.

~~~
paganel
> it's social commentary.

It's curious that rich people (at least some of them) still obsess over brands
and relatively expensive stuff that can be purchased, my feeling was that for
the past 5 years or so the cultural zeitgeist (for lack of a better
expression) was to focus on "experiences" (for those that have the material
means to do so) and generally speaking to treat the purchase of stuff for the
sole sake of buying stuff as "tacky" (again, for lack of a better expression).

I admit that I may be wrong on this one, either way, I do feel that
consumerism has dialed down a bit compared to the '90s and the early 2000s
(the pre-2008 times).

~~~
Lazare
Keep in mind that much of the article is discussing a Patagonia-brand fleece
vest. It retails for $79, and it actually _is_ a useful accessory when going
on long hikes in the Andes or whatever. So yes, there _is_ more of a focus on
experience over luxury goods, and one of the ways you can see that is in the
elite wearing relatively cheap clothes that (hopefully) imply that the wearer
does cool expensive things.

So I think you're right; while there's still a focus on brands, the brands
being discussed are _relatively_ reasonably priced. For Wall Street, I guess
that counts as progress. :)

~~~
ses1984
I have really never been understood the utility of such a vest. If you want to
stay warm, wouldn't you want to reduce loss of heat by air moving in and out
through the armpit holes? There are literally zero times I would want this
over a) the same thing with sleeves or b) no vest at all.

~~~
dagw
_If you want to stay warm, wouldn 't you want to reduce loss of heat by air
moving in and out through the armpit holes?_

Vests are designed to be worn with/under some sort of outer jacket to provide
an extra layer of insulation, without adding an extra 'layer' of sleeves that
will just be too bulky or hinder mobility.

Another useful aspect is that they pack up a lot smaller and are thus easier
to shove into the bottom of bag when you're not wearing them.

------
epanchin
Is this article based on an April fools joke?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this a comedy piece?

[0]
[https://twitter.com/binnaskim/status/1112727524675592192?s=1...](https://twitter.com/binnaskim/status/1112727524675592192?s=19)

~~~
edvinasbartkus
But this was not April Fools:
[https://twitter.com/binnaskim/status/1112800424543780864](https://twitter.com/binnaskim/status/1112800424543780864)

