Why American Workers Now Dress So Casually

[ChrisB]

The 1960s were the era of anti establishment youth culture. Eventually, the establisment took on the styles of the anti establishment and marketed them to mainstream society. This was in my opinion the real break with traditional style.

 

[Stanley Doble]

I think part of the difference too is that the world in 1950 was still being run by people born in the 1890s. They were the ones signing the checks and giving the orders and running the show.

This brings up an interesting point. Adam Smith, author of The Money Game and other books about the financial world, pointed out that there was a missing generation in Wall Street. Between 1929 and 1946 the investment world was out of date, extinct, and offered no opportunities for new blood. In the fifties and sixties you had the senior management, survivors of the crash and the long drought that followed, very conservative compared to the go - go generation who knew only the long bull market of the fifties.

Smith himself was a member of the postwar generation, what he described as the button down collar generation who saw things completely differently than the grandfathers in wing collars you describe.

I wonder how common this was in business and other places. I dare say radio, movies, and entertainment in general was the opposite and boomed with opportunities in the thirties and forties.

 

[BlueTrain]

Youth culture is always anti-establishment. It's even in the Bible, although not in those exact words.

I'm not sure if radio and movies were booming with opportunities but at one time everything you did was something new. The golden age of radio, however, didn't really last all that long, depending on where you date it. There is still network radio, sort of, but radio programs with big names lasted maybe 25 or 30 years. In a way, that's a long time, and it carried over into television, creating a sort of golden age there, too. The Golden Age of Motion Pictures might be said to start in the late 1920s but I'm not sure when it ended.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The fandom definition of the "Golden Age of Radio" tends to run from the network debut of "Amos 'n' Andy" in 1929 to the cancellation of "Suspense" and "Yours Truly, Johnny Dollar" in 1962, but in the real world it was much shorter than that. The 1929 date is a good point to begin, but from a business point of view, radio was on the skids and headed to extinction when the postwar freeze on new television station construction was lifted in late 1952.

From a truly creative point of view, you could argue for an even narrower window -- radio reached its creative zenith from about 1934 to 1944. Before that it was still discovering what it could do, after that "creativity" was out and processed, standardized stamped-out programming was in.

There was, however, a late renaissance for radio creativity after about 1950 -- by this point the networks were having more and more unsold time, and they didn't much care what was done to fill it. A lot of programs that took real creative chances appeared during this period, and some were of a very high quality. But hardly anybody was listening, and nobody but the people putting on these programs cared one way or another about them. Probably the last radio show to really do anything interesting or creative with the medium was "The Stan Freberg Show" in 1957 -- after that, there was not much left but played-out genre stuff.

There was an attempt at restarting network radio in the 1970s, but it was trapped in genre cliches rather than trying to explore anything new. "The CBS Radio Mystery Theatre" did try to stretch occasionally, but it was the only one of these "revival era" shows that ever really made any impression.

Movies have had several golden ages. The late years of the silent era, maybe 1923 to 1928, saw some astonishingly creative pictures that took the medium far away from its cheap nickelodeon past. The peak of the "studio era," from about 1933 thru the war era was the commercial peak of the medium, and it certainly was the most crowd-pleasing. The postwar era up thru the early fifties was the golden age of safe bourgeois entertainment. And the period from the mid-1960s thru the mid-70s was perhaps the Golden Age of pictures made for adult audiences.

This last "golden age" ended with the rise of "Star Wars." That picture above all others began the medium's descent into the rampaging emphasis on "summer blockbuster" superheroism that continues to the present day. Not there haven't been some worth while picutres produced in this era, but there's also been a very great deal of overblown, ridiculous nonsense made for stunted fifteen year old boys.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It was still light years better than the unkempt, unshaven, man bun-wearing street bum look that apparently drives the womens wild these days.

Josef Stalin, 1902. Hipster before hipsters were cool.

 

[BlueTrain]

WAMU, a local NPR station, had a program on Sunday nights called the Big Broadcast, which features old radio shows. It was hosted for many, many years by the late Ed Walker, who passed away a few days after his last broadcast a couple of years ago. He once remarked that it had been longer since network radio that originally broadcast the radio shows he featured than it existed to begin with. I think I mentioned before that when I was growing up, more people mentioned Duffy's Tavern than any other program and I've never heard the first episode. My favorite is still Fibber McGee & Molly, although I like Yours truly, Johnny Dollar (the man with action packed expense account). There are actually still some network radio programs but of course, it's nothing like the old days. The Golden Age is never now and I guess it's never in the future, either.

I can barely remember the Lone Ranger on radio when I was little and I also remember listening to Arthur Godfrey with my father around 1970 as he drove around on his mail route when I came home for a visit. It was a morning talk show.

I also remember hearing Armed Forces Radio overseas when I was in the army. Mostly it was pop music, same as we heard at home, but there was a comedy show called The Joyboys that was broadcast. It featured Willard Scott, formerly the weatherman on the Today Show and Ed Walker, the same Ed Walker I mentioned above. That (late 1960s) was also when the so-called pirate radio stations were broadcasting from somewhere in the English Channel.

 

[LizzieMaine]

"Duffy's" was one of the best-written comedy shows of its time -- Ed Gardner, the creator and star, had been one of the most successful producer-directors in radio in the 1930s, and he had an innate sense of timing and comedy construction, which really comes out in the show. His byplay with Eddie Green, the smart-mouthed waiter, is breathtakingly good even by modern standards. Not all radio comedy holds up well, but "Duffy's Tavern" absolutely does.

Gardner was also, by far, the most notorious consumer of comedy writers in the radio business. He would meet someone at a party who said something he thought was funny and would on the spot offer them a job as a writer, because his staff turnover was so fast. He was very very meticulous about how the scripts were put together.

 

[Edward]

Interesting to read about US perspectives of casualisation of white collar workwear. Here in the UK, it wasn't really a thing at all until the 1990s. Certainly so in Northern Ireland where I grew up. I well remember a friend starting work in the insurance industry around 1996. He mostly worked in their call centre where no customer ever set foot, but nonetheless the dresscode specified lounge suit. By contrast, around the same time the IT industry was beginning to boom in Belfast, and the order of the day there was very much 'Wired Magazine Chic' - jeans, The Gap; my brother recalls one new guy that started and wore a suit for a coupled of weeks being laughed at until he dressed in a way perceived as normal - this being a crowd where a polo shirt and anything non-denim on the legs was considered fancy. My brother is very typical of them: clothes are purely utilitarian, and one might own 'a suit', which gets worn at weddings and funerals. The software industry is very much still like that - of course, after all, we live in the Zuckerberg era - though to my eye those few who cling to it thinking its rebellious seem as outdated as someone still wearing 70s flares in 1987. In academia, where I work, things at very relaxed - some faculties moreso than others. My department is a very commercial-law focussed research and postgraduate teaching facility, and my colleagues are still very likely to wear collar and tie at least to teach, if not otherwise. Among those who dress down more, it's not perceived as necessarily bad, though I recall a graduation ceremony where the one academic from a more liberal faculty within the social sciences who loudly showed off about wearing "the only tie I own.... how do you tie one of these, I've not worn one since last graduation!" caused a lot more eyeballs than just mine to roll. Similarly, on the conference circuit there used to be a guy who made a real show of turning up in ratty jeans, a washed out t-shirt and flip flops. That circuit is very eclectic - some of us wear suits, others jeans - but all parties used to look down on that guy because it was clear it was an affectation - "I don't wear a suit like you squares!".

Intriguingly, in the City of London, many firms experimented with 'casual Friday' in the late 90s. It was the men who complained about it the most; the business casual dress codes weren't exactly what most of them were expecting, being little different to the rest of the week. In many cases the sole change was jacket and trousers instead of a lounge suit with collar and tie. Many men resented it as they felt forced to buy another working wardrobe that they didn't want to wear outside work (as distinct from what they saw as their 'real' casual clothes - ts and jeans, typically). Between that unpopularity and the envelope being ever-pushed by others, all it took was the appearance of several studies suggesting that casualising the wardrobe led to an increased casual attitude to the work, with negative impact on productivity, for the trend to disappear. City boys went back to the pinstripe uniform all week after that.

In more blue collar contexts, it was very much generational. My student job was in a small market-town in Northern Ireland - traditional, family-run DIY / plumbing / builders' supplies, both trade and consumer. The older employees who's been there since probably the sixties wore trousers, collar and tie under their shopcoats. They'd worked for the old man before the son took over in the late eighties. The son was a jeans and polo shirt guy. Myself and the other Saturday boys all wore jeans, t-shirts, and shop coats. It was a mix of retail and manual - we'd unload all the deliveries - wood, cement, the rest - as well as serve at the til. That's a pretty common transition timeline between those who would have hit their 20s in the erly 60s, to those who did the same in the 70s, to those of us who hit 20 in the early 90s. I don't much mind clothes suitable for manual labour, though I often find I go into a store and wish there was some form of staff uniform, even a shop coat, so it becomes easier to tell who you're looking to speak to....

 

[BlueTrain]

We tend to say business suit rather than lounge suit, although that sounds better than sack suit.

There are dress codes and there are expectations. We have a dress code but it's meaningless, really. The one person who wears the tightest pants or leggings and off-the-shoulder tops is the one who wrote the book, too. None of the women wear skirts, so how short is too short is irrelevant. But it's funny that someone is ridiculed for not wearing jeans. I usually mention that when I was in college, from 68 to 71, it was easy to be a non-conformist and dress differently. All you had to do was wear what everyone else was wearing.

I suspect there are still people in the U.K. wearing detachable collars and braces.

 

[sheeplady]

Where I work we have a dress code (small liberal arts college) that specifies business wear (business casual to formal).

I hate business casual, simply because as a woman it requires you to have so many clothes. No one expects (even a woman) to have ten seasonal suits... but if you're wearing the same 5 dresses day in and out people notice... you need at least 10 outfits for each season, and business casual isn't what most of us wear off work.

Not that I'd prefer to work in an environment where I was required to suit up everyday, I do like some freedom in how I dress. I just think suits are easier... there's no matching, just choose a blouse and as a woman you can dramatically change your look with a few acessories.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Interesting to read about US perspectives of casualisation of white collar workwear. Here in the UK, it wasn't really a thing at all until the 1990s.

If "business casual" was a thing before the 90s here in the US, it certainly didn't take hold any place *I* worked. Business suits were the expectations for men until about 1990 and a "jacket and tie" until about 1995. Then golf shirts exploded on us like someone dropped a 5-gallon tub of ranch dressing.

 

[BlueTrain]

One also commonly sees various knit tops with company logos, too, so they're like a uniform. The main problem with business casual is that it can be as restrictive in scope as wearing a suit or so vague that you aren't really sure if a print sport shirt meets the rule or not.

 

[Edward]

Most of the backlash against Business Casual in the City was on exactly that point. Traditional businesswear was an easier uniform.

 

[LizzieMaine]

If "business casual" was a thing before the 90s here in the US, it certainly didn't take hold any place *I* worked. Business suits were the expectations for men until about 1990 and a "jacket and tie" until about 1995. Then golf shirts exploded on us like someone dropped a 5-gallon tub of ranch dressing.

I think Bro. Hawk's comment points to something that hasn't come up yet. I submit that the rise of "business casual" as we know it today had nothing to do with "The Sixties" at all. It was, very specifically, a reaction against the overblown corporate look of the Reagan Era -- the extravagant designer suits, the striped shirts with the white collars, the "power ties" and suspenders on men, and the ridiculous frieght-train shoulder pad jackets, floppy-bow 9-to-5 blouses and witch-toe stiletto pumps on women. The Crash of '87 slapped that generation of swanking gel-haired power brokers around pretty good, and the recession of the early '90s finished the job. That whole attitude and the styles that went with it seemed to be pretty much a national joke by the mid-90s, and to go around looking like Gordon Gekko was no longer a thing to be desired. By the turn of the 21st Century, that specific look was pop-culture shorthand for an irredeemable corporate ass: see Gary Cole's character in "Office Space."

The polo-shirt-and-chino deal was about as far from crass Gekkoism as could be imagined, and the 90s were full of "a new kind of company" companies that tried to project a kinder, gentler image to the workforce and the public. The rise of the dot-com boom in the late '90s finished the job. A very sensible progression when you think about it.

 

[BlueTrain]

Practically everything we used to wear from the skin out is made fun of sooner or later. You name it: Oxford bags, celluloid collars, tie clasps, pegged pants, socks that matched your tie, nylon shirts, tie-dyed t-shirts, Henley shirt, body suits, bell bottoms, flared pants, hip-huggers, elephant legs, double-knit, zoot suits, white sport coats, string ties, union suits, ski jackets, turtle necks, white suits, linen suits, seersucker anything, pedal pushers, short-shorts, cut-offs, rolled socks, tube socks, garters for your socks, vests or waistcoats, desert boots, earth shoes, etc., etc., etc. And that's just for the men.

 

[sheeplady]

I think there's a portion of society that still expects someone in a suit to stick it to them. My parents were this way, and considering their history with "institutions" in which people wore suits, it's a bit understandable. (My mother, for instance, wanted to buy a house and had to go 3 banks to get a mortgage... the first two wouldn't even let her fill out an application because they didn't deal with "unmarried women" in the 1960s. My mother paid her 20 year loan off in 8 years, likely to the disappointment of the bank.)

I think a small part of the casualization may be that we are less wary of someone in casual clothes being money or power hungry.

Also, it does Silicon Valley companies a world of good to advertise they have a "free" and "casual" culture as they work their people for 18 hour days on wages so little they can't afford a one-bedroom apartment on in the valley. But you get to wear jeans to work! And they have professional chefs! (Never mind that you can't afford anything but jeans and you're expected to never leave the office for a meal.)

I've seen many smart students (I used to work in IT) go on to burn out at the alter of Silicon Valley. No one intended to stay very long. Whereas the others I know that are very successful work in the big consulting firms, that while they are worked hard, don't have the culture of "chaining to the desk" encouraged by the policies of much of the valley... which are always veiled in "we take care of you" and "you can be yourself" while they work people very very hard.

 

[GHT]

50 years ago, when I joined the rat-race, if you got your hands dirty at work, you were blue collar, unless you held a position of rank, like the foreman in a factory, then you were a tie wearing blue collar. You had to reach the boardroom before you were white collar in metal bashing industries.

At the start of my working life it was all "Are You Being Served." Collar and tie were de rigeur, and let me tell you, ladies never, ever wore any kind of pants. Then along came the very short hemline and suddenly ladies wearing slax was permitted. We always addressed each other as Mr, Mrs or Miss. Ms was unheard of.

As I said previously, if you got your hands dirty at work you didn't wear a tie, but those in retail, public transport crews, leisure and hospitality all earned less than the metal bashers but fancied themselves higher in the pecking order because of their mode of dress. There really was a good deal of class snobbery.

Wear a collar and tie today and you will get stared at, not even doctors bother with a neck tie and certainly TV presenters never seem to wear one. Somewhere along the line, the unshaven look took hold too. Not a beard, but that three day stubble. Long shorts for men have also become the norm, although I've yet to see such attire in the office, surgery or hotel foyer.

But, give it time.

 

[Fading Fast]

...Movies have had several golden ages. The late years of the silent era, maybe 1923 to 1928, saw some astonishingly creative pictures that took the medium far away from its cheap nickelodeon past. The peak of the "studio era," from about 1933 thru the war era was the commercial peak of the medium, and it certainly was the most crowd-pleasing. The postwar era up thru the early fifties was the golden age of safe bourgeois entertainment. And the period from the mid-1960s thru the mid-70s was perhaps the Golden Age of pictures made for adult audiences.

This last "golden age" ended with the rise of "Star Wars." That picture above all others began the medium's descent into the rampaging emphasis on "summer blockbuster" superheroism that continues to the present day. Not there haven't been some worth while picutres produced in this era, but there's also been a very great deal of overblown, ridiculous nonsense made for stunted fifteen year old boys.

I'd add in a Golden Era for movies from '29-'33 after the talkies began but before the movie code was enforced. Hollywood was on a tear making (what appear to have been mainly) small budget movies that (basically) dealt openly and honestly with social issues - pre-marital sex, babies out of wedlock, poverty, extra-marital affairs, drugs, alcoholism, incest, abortions, gigolos, prostitutes, corporate/government/political/medical corruption and on and on. These movies, IMHO, are time capsule gems that give you a window into what the world really looked like then (a lot like ours today) versus the sanitized-by-the-code world after '33.

 

[HudsonHawk]

...The Crash of '87 slapped that generation of swanking gel-haired power brokers around pretty good, and the recession of the early '90s finished the job. That whole attitude and the styles that went with it seemed to be pretty much a national joke by the mid-90s, and to go around looking like Gordon Gekko was no longer a thing to be desired. By the turn of the 21st Century, that specific look was pop-culture shorthand for an irredeemable corporate ass: see Gary Cole's character in "Office Space."....

Along those same lines, and about the same time, there appeared in media this young, anti-establishment iconoclast in his bathrobe and bunny slippers who bucked the establishment, but whose work was so brilliant and valuable that the establishment begrudgingly put up with him. He was great at exposing the Pete Principle at work and was no slouch with the ladies either.

I've had more than one person tell me they can't wear a tie to work, or even long pants and a shirt with a collar because "I need to be creative". Just imagine how creative one could be sitting there naked.

 

[BlueTrain]

So, has it been established beyond a reasonable doubt that American workers dress more casually now, allowing for the different work environments. I assume we have not been talking about people who actually work, like truck drivers, farm workers, welders, masons, construction workers and so on.