Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How jeans conquered the world (2012)

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 155 posts

Re: How jeans conquered the world (2012)

#51

Post by Nav_Panel »

chris_7 wrote: post #48
nightski wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quality difference would have to be substantial. I bring in a very high income for my area, and the thought of spending $300-$400 on a single pair of jeans is pretty out there. An $80 pair of jeans, which will often be on sale for $40-$50 will last me for 2-3 years and are of average quality. It seems to me like one would have to justify these jeans on the fashion/novelty aspect, and not quality/value as it just…

At $200 you can buy Outlier pants (or Mission Workshop, no experience with those though). At $400 you can buy freaking Arc'teryx Veilance pants. That's way too much for something that is just cotton (and not even etaProof or anything interesting).

Tell that to someone who'd buy a pair of Vetements pants for $1200[1]. And it's standard Levi's denim! But hey, the fly goes all the way around...

In other words, the fashion aspect does matter to people, oftentimes more than any practical aspect. (I think sometimes people take it to a silly degree...)

1: http://www.barneys.com/product/vetements-zip-around-straight...

Re: How jeans conquered the world (2012)

#52

Post by pitaj »

character0 wrote: post #31
Analemma_ wrote: post #2

A far as male pants/trousers go, your choices are basically jeans, corduroys, or khakis (chinos). Corduroys are uncomfortably warm, IME, and of the remaining two jeans are a clear winner for convenience: they don't need to be ironed (chinos look terrible as soon as they get even slightly wrinkled, jeans do not), and they better conceal small spills and stains. Not much more to it than that, for me.

I wash my jeans every 6-12 months, with occasional febreezing after I wear them. This is way more convenient than having to wash and iron my other pants. My other alternative are my Outlier pants https://outlier.nyc/

Do you never sweat? Are the jeans antimicrobial or something?

Re: How jeans conquered the world (2012)

#53

Post by lostlogin »

coldtea wrote: post #18
Analemma_ wrote: post #2

A far as male pants/trousers go, your choices are basically jeans, corduroys, or khakis (chinos). Corduroys are uncomfortably warm, IME, and of the remaining two jeans are a clear winner for convenience: they don't need to be ironed (chinos look terrible as soon as they get even slightly wrinkled, jeans do not), and they better conceal small spills and stains. Not much more to it than that, for me.

> A far as male pants/trousers go, your choices are basically jeans, corduroys, or khakis (chinos) Why, what happened to cotton lycra, herringbone, linen, traditional business suit trousers etc?

Lycra in the workplace needs to stop.

Re: How jeans conquered the world (2012)

#54

Post by specializeded »

icc97 wrote: post #44

When 90% of the people around you are all wearing some shade of blue jeans, its a bit the same as everybody driving around in cars in some shade of grey (which they do at least in Belgium). That is, it's just really boring. Colour is one of the few things we've got to express ourselves, so it's a shame we don't use it more.

That does sound boring... I see black jeans, all shades of blue jeans, white jeans and gray jeans on a v regular basis. High waisted, cut off, slim, baggy, "jorts" & their modern, slimmer variants etc

A few years ago there were even lots of very loud turquoise, red and yellow ones around for a time, and honestly I think we're all a little glad that's ended :)

Re: How jeans conquered the world (2012)

#55

Post by ashark »

anigbrowl wrote: post #41
baus wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you take a pair of unwashed 501s and compare them to a pair of unwashed Iron Heart denim, you will see that the quality difference is substantial. Whether that matters is something you have to decide for yourself Since I wear denim almost everyday, the quality difference and the attention to detail matters to me. It reminds me that attention to detail matters in my own work I don't understand why engineers tend to…

I don't understand why engineers tend to care so little about the quality of their clothes Virtue signaling. It says you're focused on your intellectual pursuits rather than material things (in contrast to 'the suits'). This is actually great from a hiring manager's point of view, because you can also guess (guess, not know) from someone's appearance whether they are single and to what degree they take care of themse…

> There's also a kind of signaling by people who are rich enough not to care about these things and dress accordingly, which is a way of reminding other people that you have so much money you don't care about what impression you make. This only works when people already know you're wealthy, though.

Fussell notes this in his Class. The group he categorizes as "top out-of-sight" (mostly old money) is genuinely beyond caring about appearances and are where you get a lot of "eccentric" rich-person behavior like wearing really cheap clothes. Upper-class folks, especially younger ones, may very carefully and deliberately dress way down, especially when traveling (for some reason), though they will not, and will not intend to, actually blend in.

Separately but somewhat relatedly, he claims that higher classes will tend to buy unexceptional things where spending more is seen as primarily a status signaling thing, and especially when the thing is in any way technological—so buying a flashy, expensive, new car belongs to the sensibilities of the upper-middle classes and lower (regardless of their income—talking about socialized class, not income) while the comfortably rich might just own a beat-up Chevy, or an old luxury car.

Where you do not see people do it is when there's a risk they might actually be mistaken for belonging to any part of Fussell's "prole" category—so, upper-middle and, especially, middle.

Re: How jeans conquered the world (2012)

#56

Post by squeaky-clean »

Nav_Panel wrote: post #51
chris_7 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At $200 you can buy Outlier pants (or Mission Workshop, no experience with those though). At $400 you can buy freaking Arc'teryx Veilance pants. That's way too much for something that is just cotton (and not even etaProof or anything interesting).

Tell that to someone who'd buy a pair of Vetements pants for $1200[1]. And it's standard Levi's denim! But hey, the fly goes all the way around... In other words, the fashion aspect does matter to people, oftentimes more than any practical aspect. (I think sometimes people take it to a silly degree...) 1: http://www.barneys.com/product/vetements-zip-around-straight...

I don't think Vetements is a fair comparison though as they're based around that sort of hype and designer fashion. There's really no reason for such high prices aside from exclusivity and who the designers are. If some people like that, that's fine, but they're not being bought specifically for quality and looks you can't find elsewhere.

Even the founder/designer jokes that he wouldn't pay full price for his own designs.

http://www.complex.com/style/2016/05/vetements-designer-demn...

> My friends very often can’t afford the clothes. Like myself, I wear prototypes but I don’t think I’m crazy fashion enough to go and buy those things. I’d rather go on holiday. I feel like it brings more use. Holidays are important. Holidays and quality time on your sofa.

Re: How jeans conquered the world (2012)

#57

Post by jeffbarr »

Back when I was a kid (born in 1960), jeans were called dungarees and you could wear them after school but not at school. This was in the northeastern part of the US, in a middle-class, public school environment. It was definitely not acceptable to wear jeans to a professional job until much later. In fact, I had to wear a tie at some of my first jobs as a developer.

Re: How jeans conquered the world (2012)

#58

Post by silviogutierrez »

On jeans as an aesthetic choice, I have no strong opinion. Like everything else, they can look good or bad depending on fit/color/etc.

But jeans for comfort? Maybe I'm the only one, but I find pants infinitely more comfortable. Even wool dress pants.

And in the summer, jeans barely breath at all.

Re: How jeans conquered the world (2012)

#59

Post by Nav_Panel »

wutbrodo wrote: post #50
anigbrowl wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why engineers tend to care so little about the quality of their clothes Virtue signaling. It says you're focused on your intellectual pursuits rather than material things (in contrast to 'the suits'). This is actually great from a hiring manager's point of view, because you can also guess (guess, not know) from someone's appearance whether they are single and to what degree they take care of themse…

Oh please. Virtue signalling is a useful topic, but it gets really tiresome to see people who just discovered the concept run around and excitedly apply it to everything, like a child with a new toy. The downside of higher quality clothing (money) is obvious: it's the upside that needs explaining. Fashion is the prototypical example of signaling, and quality as held separate from fashion has a couple minor advantages…

I think there are other reasons to dress well other than just signaling.

I personally find psychological benefits to dressing nicely -- I feel much more industrious and "ready-to-work" when I wear a nice outfit to work compared to tshirt/jeans/sneakers, plus I get a nice "switch" effect when I get home and can take it all off. Similarly, I feel more prepared to exercise when I switch into my exercise clothes, even though those DO have "real" benefits thanks to their cut and material.

Beyond that, the signaling can be extensive. Not all signals are "quality" -- you can dress to show off your creativity or as a means of expression (I personally love to thrift/vintage shop and learn about fashion trends from other eras). You can dress to emphasize/de-emphasize various aspects of your face and body, presumably for sex appeal. And sure, you can dress to show that you've got money to spend.

But a lot of times, people dress to fit in. This can apparently get venomous in certain professions (finance, for one). In tech, there's often a dress code, as described in this comment[1], and "dressing like you don't understand why people care about nice clothing" is realistically pretty close to it.

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14404413

Re: How jeans conquered the world (2012)

#60

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

Nav_Panel wrote: post #51
chris_7 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At $200 you can buy Outlier pants (or Mission Workshop, no experience with those though). At $400 you can buy freaking Arc'teryx Veilance pants. That's way too much for something that is just cotton (and not even etaProof or anything interesting).

Tell that to someone who'd buy a pair of Vetements pants for $1200[1]. And it's standard Levi's denim! But hey, the fly goes all the way around... In other words, the fashion aspect does matter to people, oftentimes more than any practical aspect. (I think sometimes people take it to a silly degree...) 1: http://www.barneys.com/product/vetements-zip-around-straight...

So long ago that it seems like another life, I used to work at Barney's New York. The people who think nothing of dropping $1,200+ on a pair of jeans, or $500 on a T-Shirt don't even remotely take practicality into consideration.
Post reply on HN