Who Gets to Wear Workwear?

[Aloysius]

Are you sure about that? I mean, full bespoke tailoring in Europe, from a well known tailor in a main city, do not goes under 6000 euros for a 2 pieces suit. In Naples, if you know the guy, you can find better prices from amazing artisans...but this is not accessible to everybody

I am speaking from experience. Some of these firms even have their prices posted online.

And many of the off Row firms in London have cutters with extremely strong Savile Row pedigree—better than some still on the Row—such as Jon Duboise formerly of Nutter. Off Row in London runs about 1500 pounds, which is about 30% higher than a decade ago.

None of this is meant as a knock on any of the workwear brands, to be clear. They put a ton of labour and materials and research into what they do. But the thing is at that cost there are other things I’d rather get.

 

[The Lost Cowboy]

In China, the gateway for a shift from being a villager to a city dweller is factory work. I know this first hand and believe it is the same in many countries.

What is significant about this is that villages in China are notoriously simple and communistic (the villages are overseen by a completely different governmental department than the cities, which are, for all intents and purposes, modern and capitalistic).

I'm sure other members have spent even more time in China than I have and can correct me if I'm wrong, but I have spoken to a number of factory workers in China (and their children) and they have all preferred the factory to the village. The village is extremely restrictive and literally dead end, whereas even the lowest factory work allows some opportunity for personal growth and personal agency/decisiveness. And again I believe it's the same throughout Asia (i know it to be the case in Malaysia as well, though village life is not nearly as restrictive in Malaysia).

Knowing this, I am always frustrated by westerners who go on and on about "sweat shops" and "fair wages" etc. The situation is far more complex. Take the recent Bangladeshi garment industry workers' strike: everyone is on about Bangladeshi garment workers' rights and that's true, but the fact is there would not be a political consciousness among Bangladeshi garment workers if they had not been first organized by so-called "exploitative" capitalistic forces. They would still be villagers without any real sense of political consciousness.

I'm far from saying 'yay exploitation'. I'm just saying there's good and bad in almost everything even fast fashion - to the point that not everything is as simple as "purchase more consciously". Unless we believe the modernization of Asia is fundementally a bad thing (which is a worthwhile discussion and a good case study might be Tibet), than it is very very hard to dismiss "sweat shops" as simply exploitative because in many places these factories have literally been the fundamental building block for improving the lived experiences of the locals. Or are we so intent to bemoan the demise of some romantic notions of Asian rural lifestyles (that never truly existed anyway in the way we imagine them) that we want to condemn factory workers in Asia to true lifelong impoverishment with no hope at all of escape - because that is what the village is even today in many parts of Asia.

The village is utterly nowheresville, and like it or not, the fast fashions of the west have been the engine of escape for many of those people. Exploitative? Sure. But the alternative for many of the locals is even worse which is why many of them would love to have a factory job.

(BTW, since I'm actually typing this in Bangkok: the same can be said for *** workers in Thailand. I have talked to many of them and to a person all the women I have talked to would rather be doing *** work in Bangkok than living in Isan which seems to be the end of the world to them. Does that mean, "yay for the *** industry in Thailand'? No. It simply means our moralistic posturings are more often than not exercises in self-righteousness because the actuality is way more complicated than simply "look how exploitative western consumerism is.")

Sorry this is so long, I have never tried to communicate these thoughts before. Thanks for reading and I welcome counter arguments as these are questions I have wrestled with a long time.

 

[Will Zach]

^^
Good points. Rarely (if ever) are things as black and white as we would like them to be.

 

[Edward]

I think it really does depend. Personally, I would argue most if not all "workwear" garments that are 40 years old or more are fair game as nobody is currently using those items for work.

Plus, a lot of items that are labeled as workwear from back in the day also doubled as simple casual wear. For example, most straight zip half belt leather jackets from the 30s and 40s were worn to blue collar jobs, but also sometimes worn by white collar guys as casual wear or for the outdoors. We've seen the vintage photos to prove it. To me, something like that is just clothing and not specifically workwear.

Modern workwear is often pretty specialized so you'd have to try a lot harder to be a workwear poser nowadays IMO.

Seems to me a lot comes down to how we define workwear too. I suspect it varies a lot, depending on whether you're dealing with a situation where there's a uniform (actual or defacto, based on company requirements and such). But yes... The way purpose-made stuff has evolved for manual labour, construction and such, it'll be interesting to see whether and when it ever evolves into fashion wear. Comparisons can be drawn with motorcycling gear, I would argue. A few years ago, we did actually start to see UK shops selling skintight jeans that were patterned after dedicated modern motorcycle gear (as in the sort of stuff you see racers or power ranger types wearing), and which of course would have been worse than useless on a motorcycle, so their sole purpose was fashionwear. It'll be interesting to see where this all goes in ten or twenty years.

Not necessarily.

http://[URL][URL][URL]https://www.m...beauty/balenciaga-selling-28k-hi-vis-22304936

[/URL][/URL][/URL]

I've seen stuff like this sold as dedicated hiking wear before now, but nothing at this sort of price. Oh, my!

An Aero or Lewis is priced comparably to a sports jacket from an off-Row tailor; Field is priced like a two piece suit from one. The cheaper Japanese brands like a three piece. Himel is in spitting distance of a jacket from a Savile Row tailor.

Not far off. Interestingly, I realise that I ascribe value to things based on durability - I'll happily spend on a leather jacket what I might flinch at in a suit for the simple reason that a leather jacket (assuming I still fit it) will have a longer life, albeit with maybe a reline here and there, than a suit which could get mothed, and where the trousers especially will only last so long. (On the other hand, I can justify a lot more on a pair of suit trousers than I ever could jeans which I'll only wear kicking around the house or taking the dog out.) Objectively, both you can break down the cost and production process and it's very little different, both involving the skills, labour , and all the rest of it...

It's not entirely surprising, I suppose, that as those of greater financial means glom onto workwear, there's the possibility to sell upmarket (and higher price band) versions of the same, in the same way people in certain income brackets have, by and large, always spend more on suits and whatever. One of the most fascinating things I ever saw was an article about a pair of Row made jeans. To me this just seemed madness given what jeans are to me, but then if I were a minted techbro with bottomless pockets, maybe I'd want jeans made to my perfect spec rather than bother seeking them out OTR?

Are you sure about that? I mean, full bespoke tailoring in Europe, from a well known tailor in a main city, do not goes under 6000 euros for a 2 pieces suit. In Naples, if you know the guy, you can find better prices from amazing artisans...but this is not accessible to everybody

In China, the gateway for a shift from being a villager to a city dweller is factory work. I know this first hand and believe it is the same in many countries.

Without getting into the politics of it, it's certainly true that with so many things when looking at other cultures we in the West often fail to look at them through their localised cultural lense, while applying our own stereotypes to boot.

 

[Aloysius]

Not far off. Interestingly, I realise that I ascribe value to things based on durability - I'll happily spend on a leather jacket what I might flinch at in a suit for the simple reason that a leather jacket (assuming I still fit it) will have a longer life, albeit with maybe a reline here and there, than a suit which could get mothed, and where the trousers especially will only last so long. (On the other hand, I can justify a lot more on a pair of suit trousers than I ever could jeans which I'll only wear kicking around the house or taking the dog out.) Objectively, both you can break down the cost and production process and it's very little different, both involving the skills, labour , and all the rest of it...

I thought the same, but I think my position has shifted. Not the position about durability, but about what is durable. Unlike a leather jacket, a wool coat can be let in or out, meaning you can keep the thing going for decades even with size changes. And if you get a hardy English wool, they simply will not wear out unless something like moths come into play, which can be kept away with cedar. (And not all wools will attract moths equally; camelhair and cashmere very much do though.)

It was something of a wakeup call when I discovered that his tailor was altering the late Prince Philip’s trousers from the 40s (not because he’d gotten bigger but because he wanted them altered from Oxford bags to normal straight legs). Wool lasts a remarkably long time; and the older heavier wools hold their crease and shape for decades. Hard to top that.

It's not entirely surprising, I suppose, that as those of greater financial means glom onto workwear, there's the possibility to sell upmarket (and higher price band) versions of the same, in the same way people in certain income brackets have, by and large, always spend more on suits and whatever. One of the most fascinating things I ever saw was an article about a pair of Row made jeans. To me this just seemed madness given what jeans are to me, but then if I were a minted techbro with bottomless pockets, maybe I'd want jeans made to my perfect spec rather than bother seeking them out OTR?

I think there was a certain novelty value to Levi’s in London having a Row-trained cutter offering bespoke jeans, but certainly not where I would spend my money for either bespoke or jeans!

 

[Edward]

I thought the same, but I think my position has shifted. Not the position about durability, but about what is durable. Unlike a leather jacket, a wool coat can be let in or out, meaning you can keep the thing going for decades even with size changes. And if you get a hardy English wool, they simply will not wear out unless something like moths come into play, which can be kept away with cedar. (And not all wools will attract moths equally; camelhair and cashmere very much do though.)

Moths are the killer. And a big reason why anything I have that is wool now goes into a garment bag as soon as I'm back in the house... Honestly, if ever anyone should create a genetically modified wool that doesn't attract moths (or, hell, a manmade fibre indistinguishable from wool in the hand but inedible to moths and carpet beetles), I'd be first in the queue. That *would* be something I'd consider going bespoke for!

No experience of camelhair, but cashmere content of any sort is on my absolute Do Not Buy list - moth magnet, and just too damn fragile even without moths.

It was something of a wakeup call when I discovered that his tailor was altering the late Prince Philip’s trousers from the 40s (not because he’d gotten bigger but because he wanted them altered from Oxford bags to normal straight legs). Wool lasts a remarkably long time; and the older heavier wools hold their crease and shape for decades. Hard to top that.

The quality of cloth they'd have been would have been another level entirely - though of course he will have had a wardrobe of a size where each of his suits will have received much more limited wear than that of a suit worn by the average person; bigger rotation means everything lasts longer... If I could afford enough nice suits, I'd wear one every day.

I think there was a certain novelty value to Levi’s in London having a Row-trained cutter offering bespoke jeans, but certainly not where I would spend my money for either bespoke or jeans!

Yeah, I remember a period in - the 90s? - when Levis did a M2M offering as well, though very much at a price. Aside from the novelty value, it would be interesting to see what a Row tailor would bring to the construction process. It can't be the cloth: one bolt of denim is very much like another, so the old Row habit of buying a dedicated bolt of cloth for each suit, allowing you the option of patched repairs or a new pair of trousers that still match twenty odd years later, isn't going to be a thing with jeans.

 

[Aloysius]

The quality of cloth they'd have been would have been another level entirely - though of course he will have had a wardrobe of a size where each of his suits will have received much more limited wear than that of a suit worn by the average person; bigger rotation means everything lasts longer... If I could afford enough nice suits, I'd wear one every day.

I don't think it was a pair of particularly fancy trousers, however as was the norm in the time it was an extremely heavy fabric by our standards. Their 'summer weights' are what we now find sold as winter weight! And robustness was key.

 

[Worf]

Well...... the work wear my parents wore, maid, chauffeur, field hand etc... has yet to migrate up the food chain. Wake me up when it does and perhaps I'll have an opinion. I do hate fads though. The whole "Urban Cowboy" wannabe Trucker fads of the 70's made me physically ill, as did disco. Guess I'll always be behind the times.

Worf

 

[Edward]

Well...... the work wear my parents wore, maid, chauffeur, field hand etc... has yet to migrate up the food chain. Wake me up when it does and perhaps I'll have an opinion. I do hate fads though. The whole "Urban Cowboy" wannabe Trucker fads of the 70's made me physically ill, as did disco. Guess I'll always be behind the times.

Worf

Well, as Wilde himself said,

Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months.

But then he did also say

One should either be a work of art, or wear a work of art.

, among other gems!

 

[BobHufford]

 

[Bfd70]

In China, the gateway for a shift from being a villager to a city dweller is factory work. I know this first hand and believe it is the same in many countries.

What is significant about this is that villages in China are notoriously simple and communistic (the villages are overseen by a completely different governmental department than the cities, which are, for all intents and purposes, modern and capitalistic).

I'm sure other members have spent even more time in China than I have and can correct me if I'm wrong, but I have spoken to a number of factory workers in China (and their children) and they have all preferred the factory to the village. The village is extremely restrictive and literally dead end, whereas even the lowest factory work allows some opportunity for personal growth and personal agency/decisiveness. And again I believe it's the same throughout Asia (i know it to be the case in Malaysia as well, though village life is not nearly as restrictive in Malaysia).

Knowing this, I am always frustrated by westerners who go on and on about "sweat shops" and "fair wages" etc. The situation is far more complex. Take the recent Bangladeshi garment industry workers' strike: everyone is on about Bangladeshi garment workers' rights and that's true, but the fact is there would not be a political consciousness among Bangladeshi garment workers if they had not been first organized by so-called "exploitative" capitalistic forces. They would still be villagers without any real sense of political consciousness.

I'm far from saying 'yay exploitation'. I'm just saying there's good and bad in almost everything even fast fashion - to the point that not everything is as simple as "purchase more consciously". Unless we believe the modernization of Asia is fundementally a bad thing (which is a worthwhile discussion and a good case study might be Tibet), than it is very very hard to dismiss "sweat shops" as simply exploitative because in many places these factories have literally been the fundamental building block for improving the lived experiences of the locals. Or are we so intent to bemoan the demise of some romantic notions of Asian rural lifestyles (that never truly existed anyway in the way we imagine them) that we want to condemn factory workers in Asia to true lifelong impoverishment with no hope at all of escape - because that is what the village is even today in many parts of Asia.

The village is utterly nowheresville, and like it or not, the fast fashions of the west have been the engine of escape for many of those people. Exploitative? Sure. But the alternative for many of the locals is even worse which is why many of them would love to have a factory job.

(BTW, since I'm actually typing this in Bangkok: the same can be said for *** workers in Thailand. I have talked to many of them and to a person all the women I have talked to would rather be doing *** work in Bangkok than living in Isan which seems to be the end of the world to them. Does that mean, "yay for the *** industry in Thailand'? No. It simply means our moralistic posturings are more often than not exercises in self-righteousness because the actuality is way more complicated than simply "look how exploitative western consumerism is.")

Sorry this is so long, I have never tried to communicate these thoughts before. Thanks for reading and I welcome counter arguments as these are questions I have wrestled with a long time.

Thank you. That was a well thought out position

 

[jchance]

Not far off. Interestingly, I realise that I ascribe value to things based on durability - I'll happily spend on a leather jacket what I might flinch at in a suit for the simple reason that a leather jacket (assuming I still fit it) will have a longer life, albeit with maybe a reline here and there, than a suit which could get mothed, and where the trousers especially will only last so long. (On the other hand, I can justify a lot more on a pair of suit trousers than I ever could jeans which I'll only wear kicking around the house or taking the dog out.) Objectively, both you can break down the cost and production process and it's very little different, both involving the skills, labour , and all the rest of it...

I’m the opposite. I assign value to clothes based on the frequency I’d wear the clothes. That is, I see clothes as how much I’d have to pay to ‘rent’ it for each wear.

A closet queen custom $4k leather jacket that gets just a one-time use would cost me $4k to ‘rent’ it one time. In contrast, if I wear a $2k suit 3 times weekly, 50 weeks yearly, for 5 years, that’s 750 wears over its lifetime and it costs me to ‘rent’ it at $2.67 per wear. A biker would get more usage out of a leather jacket, and a lawyer, for example, would get more mileage out of a suit. And thus a biker would get a higher quality, higher-price leather jacket and the lawyer would get a higher quality, higher-price suit without feeling like they overpaid.

It is the frequency of usage that would determine how much one ought to pay for the quality and the price of the clothing item in question.

 

[jchance]

I’ve been undergoing some changes in my life, and this post on IG hits on something I’ve been contemplating.

Ken Sakata on Instagram: "Who gets to wear workwear?"

58K likes, 639 comments - sakata.ken on December 29, 2024: "Who gets to wear workwear?".

www.instagram.com

For the New Year, I am going to make more considered and thoughtful choices.

Please feel free to share your thoughts…..

Happy New Year!

As to my take on the OP’s question, I think the luxury designers of workwear have failed at the fit. Why would I pay $3k for an LV workwear clothing item when I could just buy Carhatt for $100? That’s $2.9k extra for just the label. Both would look the same, fit the same, and Carhatt may even deliver higher quality and last longer.

I was reading somewhere that when RRL did their collection of vintage leather jackets, it updated the patterns for a modern slim fit. That’s an improvement on the original.

The issue with workwear is that they fit poorly, they are meant to be loose clothing for the ease of movement for the blue collar workers. The luxury designers simply slap their labels on the workwear items and increase the price by 30x. That’s just silly. They should have done what RRL did and improved on the fit at least, maybe use higher quality fabric too, like the current quiet-luxury trend.

 

[Edward]

I’m the opposite. I assign value to clothes based on the frequency I’d wear the clothes. That is, I see clothes as how much I’d have to pay to ‘rent’ it for each wear.

A closet queen custom $4k leather jacket that gets just a one-time use would cost me $4k to ‘rent’ it one time. In contrast, if I wear a $2k suit 3 times weekly, 50 weeks yearly, for 5 years, that’s 750 wears over its lifetime and it costs me to ‘rent’ it at $2.67 per wear. A biker would get more usage out of a leather jacket, and a lawyer, for example, would get more mileage out of a suit. And thus a biker would get a higher quality, higher-price leather jacket and the lawyer would get a higher quality, higher-price suit without feeling like they overpaid.

It is the frequency of usage that would determine how much one ought to pay for the quality and the price of the clothing item in question.

I've looked at it that way with a few things that I've been uncertain about the price over for sure. The first time I remember doing it was my first pair of ******* trousers back in the 90s; I think I had those down to about 50p a wear when I outgrew them (and I suppose also cut the "rental" markedly by selling them on eBay for half the original purchase price). Definitely helps decide whether a lot of stuff is worth it.

 

[Edward]

As to my take on the OP’s question, I think the luxury designers of workwear have failed at the fit. Why would I pay $3k for an LV workwear clothing item when I could just buy Carhatt for $100? That’s $2.9k extra for just the label. Both would look the same, fit the same, and Carhatt may even deliver higher quality and last longer.

I was reading somewhere that when RRL did their collection of vintage leather jackets, it updated the patterns for a modern slim fit. That’s an improvement on the original.

The issue with workwear is that they fit poorly, they are meant to be loose clothing for the ease of movement for the blue collar workers. The luxury designers simply slap their labels on the workwear items and increase the price by 30x. That’s just silly. They should have done what RRL did and improved on the fit at least, maybe use higher quality fabric too, like the current quiet-luxury trend.

Interesting thought. Per personal preference, I wouldn't buy something to compromised the original fit as it's the vintage look I'm after.... but I completely understand your take on the notion of getting something 'added' for the money. Of course labels will sell the brand for profit where they can, that's the market. There's a lot of stuff I look at in askance myself, though, for the upcharges. IN the last couple of years, I've picked up four different iterations of the US Army Daisy Mae hat (the first one was a curiosity as much as anything, but to my surprise I found I really liked wearing it on those really hot days when convenience calls for a cap but constant sunlight calls for the coverage only a full brim can give...). All four of them together, bought new (two Bronson, one WPG, one Soldier of Fortune), cost me the same as one made by Real McCoys, Buzz or similar. The latter are nice, but in this case there's just no difference...

I suspect it varies between markets as well. Dickies 874s are sold as cheap workwear in the US, whereas here in the UK they sell them at more than twice the price typically (equivalent of USD100 is not unusual), as part of their "lifestyle" range for skater kids. Mind you, the same was the case with Levis basic 501s back in the 80s, so plus ca change...

 

[Bfd70]

As to my take on the OP’s question, I think the luxury designers of workwear have failed at the fit. Why would I pay $3k for an LV workwear clothing item when I could just buy Carhatt for $100? That’s $2.9k extra for just the label. Both would look the same, fit the same, and Carhatt may even deliver higher quality and last longer.

I was reading somewhere that when RRL did their collection of vintage leather jackets, it updated the patterns for a modern slim fit. That’s an improvement on the original.

The issue with workwear is that they fit poorly, they are meant to be loose clothing for the ease of movement for the blue collar workers. The luxury designers simply slap their labels on the workwear items and increase the price by 30x. That’s just silly. They should have done what RRL did and improved on the fit at least, maybe use higher quality fabric too, like the current quiet-luxury trend.

Then not “improve the fit” but rather tailor the fit for fashion. As you say, the fit is loose for ease of movement in the trades.

 

[Tom71]

I’m the opposite. I assign value to clothes based on the frequency I’d wear the clothes. That is, I see clothes as how much I’d have to pay to ‘rent’ it for each wear.

A closet queen custom $4k leather jacket that gets just a one-time use would cost me $4k to ‘rent’ it one time. In contrast, if I wear a $2k suit 3 times weekly, 50 weeks yearly, for 5 years, that’s 750 wears over its lifetime and it costs me to ‘rent’ it at $2.67 per wear. A biker would get more usage out of a leather jacket, and a lawyer, for example, would get more mileage out of a suit. And thus a biker would get a higher quality, higher-price leather jacket and the lawyer would get a higher quality, higher-price suit without feeling like they overpaid.

It is the frequency of usage that would determine how much one ought to pay for the quality and the price of the clothing item in question.

Very fair points. As someone who wears formal attire every day, I’ve long since stopped burdening me with low-quality or ill-fitting suits (or dress shoes).

With luxury items (stuff, I don’t “need” but “want”) my calculation is modified, though: Purchase price divided by the times it made me smile.

 

[Aloysius]

Very fair points. As someone who wears formal attire every day, I’ve long since stopped burdening me with low-quality or I’ll-fitting suits (or dress shoes).

Spot on, and many of the same issues that come up with work wear come up with suits and the like. For instance, I don't think the 2010s fashion of skintight suits could have emerged earlier, because even in the 2000s it was still the norm for men across a wide range of jobs to wear suits daily. A fashion trend that made it hard to even get to work in your work clothes simply would not work! In contrast, those 2010s fashion suits (whether expensive or cheap) were actually rarely worn so the pushback that would come from daily wearers did not apply.

(People sometimes try to tie the skinny fit back to the 60s, but if you look at how the 1960s men they use as examples dressed, none of them is actually in a skinny fit. Our cultural memory is malleable.)

 

[Tom71]

Spot on, and many of the same issues that come up with work wear come up with suits and the like. For instance, I don't think the 2010s fashion of skintight suits could have emerged earlier, because even in the 2000s it was still the norm for men across a wide range of jobs to wear suits daily. A fashion trend that made it hard to even get to work in your work clothes simply would not work! In contrast, those 2010s fashion suits (whether expensive or cheap) were actually rarely worn so the pushback that would come from daily wearers did not apply.

(People sometimes try to tie the skinny fit back to the 60s, but if you look at how the 1960s men they use as examples dressed, none of them is actually in a skinny fit. Our cultural memory is malleable.)
View attachment 715451

Great picture and a convincing argument.

I sometimes wish that I could graduate to wearing suits in my leisure time as well. You are never inappropriately dressed, and it just works as a suit of armour against everyday nihilisms like sloppy manners or clothing.

Alas, I can’t. Come Saturday I so long for my T-Shirts, denims and leathers it’s almost laughable.