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 themselves, while will in turn give an idea of how much work you can pile onto them before they figure it out or change their personality.
For those who don't 'get' clothes (as a former sufferer): you may not be able to readily distinguish expensive clothes from cheap ones, or see the point of wearing them. But other people do, and if you look like money, you will be able to get more money in negotiations. If you look or say that you don't care about such things, you'll get lots of affirmation and less money, because affirmation is virtually free.
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.
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 like being long-lasting and marginally more comfortable that many people feel aren't worth the price.
I dress moderately well, but that's largely against my preferences. I do it because I'm aware that people treat you differently based on how you look and how you dress, and I've decided that the cost and annoyance of putting together a good wardrobe is worth the benefits. To be clear, I've got a pretty low opinion of those who judge others based on their attire, but I'm realistic (and cynical) enough to get that that's the world I live in.
I've worked with a lot of incredibly smart engineers at places like Google, and the people I know pretty much ran the gamut of caring about the quality of their clothing. The only difference is that they tended to have their work performance judged on productivity instead of fashion so, relative to others, their calculus for how to dress included one less variable in favor of dressing up.
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.
What I was arguing against is the maximizing impulse on the _other_ end: the notion that it's so self-evidently universally valuable that the primary reason to not dress well would be Virtue signaling.
That comment you linked to is just flat bullshit. People who desperately try to justify strict old-fashioned dress codes somehow conflate "you can literally lose your job if you don't dress this way" with "I feel awkward being the only person dressed this way, even in the absence of anyone else's reaction". It's insane to me that so many people uncritically parrot this utter nonsense.
There is also big difference between formal rules you can be fired for not following and informal ones - informal are still limiting but people cross them once in a while and you often finds it is actually ok in the long term.
People like to generalize tech as if everything would be stereotypical frat like start up, but it is not the case.
Curious, were you wearing your higher quality clothing when you made this comment ?
For some, more expensive clothes increases their sense of superiority. I, for example, am less polite and less patient when I have to dress well. It isn't so much of a problem now that I am aware of it.
I don't think describing a common thought pattern has much to do with an increased sense of superiority. Have you never spoken about a behavior or activity that you think is bad? Were you exhibiting a superiority complex each time? Give me a break.
I don't feel the psychological effects of dressing well particularly strongly, but I acknowledge that others do and I don't think there's anything wrong with those feelings.
That's a very different position from being small minded enough to universalize one's own attitudes towards attire to "explain" the behavior of those who may not feel the same way as you. _That's_ what I was arguing against, the idea that virtue signalling must be the reason for putting less money and time into attire because people couldn't _possibly_ have different preferences.
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.
Also, although the parts you selected are pretty reasonable and provide insight in this discussion, I would advise taking Fussell's book with some caution: it is an entertaining read but it is not definitive or really all that well-supported beyond his personal observations, and it slices a particular time and culture that seems to be on the wane (as the American middle class disappears, and the nature of the working class changes).
His "Class X" stuff was way off, of course, and is another thing the trappings of which became just another class marker (for hipsters, in fact, and some other fashion/lifestyle movements). Probably that's a recurring cycle with countercultures. Some specifics have shifted, though trends and anxieties have not so much, I think. A lot of the visible wealth now is (as usual) new money—often tech folks—so I think it remains to be seen whether their kids and grandkids will retain "lower" (largely upper-middle) class tastes and behaviors or integrate fully into the upper classes.
I could elaborate on some of the racial dimensions of the "hipster", though, if you'd like. It's not a topic I know much about, so yes, I'd definitely love to hear your thoughts on the matter.
The crux seems to be:
> [The] hipster—and the reference here is to Norman Mailer’s “The White Negro” essay for Dissent in 1957—was explicitly defined by the desire of a white avant-garde to disaffiliate itself from whiteness, with its stain of Eisenhower, the bomb, and the corporation, and achieve the “cool” knowledge and exoticized energy, lust, and violence of black Americans...
> The hipster, in both black and white incarnations, in his essence had been about superior knowledge—what Broyard called “a priorism.” He insisted that hipsterism was developed from a sense that minorities in America were subject to decisions made about their lives by conspiracies of power they could never possibly know. The hip reaction was to insist, purely symbolically, on forms of knowledge that they possessed before anyone else, indeed before the creation of positive knowledge—a priori. Broyard focused on the password language of hip slang.
> The return of the term after 1999 reframed the knowledge question. Hipster, in its revival, referred to an air of knowing about exclusive things before anyone else...
The rest of the article is sort-of a history of various trends in "hipsterism" over the period from 1999 to 2009. But this is quite a digression from the dominance of jeans...
but ... it is supposed to be meritocracy :)
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 care so little about the quality of their clothes