The Demonization of Effort - Bemoaning Pajamas at Work

The reason people look like shit today:

1. People back in the 50s and 60s were expected to dress up before they left the house. Even if you had a filthy job, you took a bath and dressed in your Sunday Best to go to Church. People who didn't conform were ostracized. After the Commies took over and standards loosened in the 70s, people started dressing like slobs, and the t-shirt and turtleneck techbros of the 90s stuck a knife in the formal workplace office suit for good. People started caring more about feeling comfortable as the consequences for looking like a slob decreased.

2. The invention of cars killed hats, as no one but farmers and ranchers needed to wear them anymore.

3. Women were liberated and earned their own money, meaning they could dress like slobs and still get men. Women no longer had to dress in ruffles and tight laces in an arms race with other women, competing to win the best provider males.

4. Stretchy and cheap fabrics were invented, meaning a person could have a wardrobe filled with baggy tees and one-size fits all elastic waistband pants. Tailored clothing was pretty much relegated to weddings, proms, or those few office jobs that still required them.

5. People eat like shit. They'd rather spend hundreds of dollars on doordash for some cooled over mediocre fried food, than cook their own healthy food. Medical science usually steps in to rescue the fatty from their bad decisions, at least until they reach a certain weight, which they might not reach until their 50s.
 
The reason people look like shit today:

1. People back in the 50s and 60s were expected to dress up before they left the house. Even if you had a filthy job, you took a bath and dressed in your Sunday Best to go to Church. People who didn't conform were ostracized. After the Commies took over and standards loosened in the 70s, people started dressing like slobs, and the t-shirt and turtleneck techbros of the 90s stuck a knife in the formal workplace office suit for good. People started caring more about feeling comfortable as the consequences for looking like a slob decreased.

2. The invention of cars killed hats, as no one but farmers and ranchers needed to wear them anymore.

3. Women were liberated and earned their own money, meaning they could dress like slobs and still get men. Women no longer had to dress in ruffles and tight laces in an arms race with other women, competing to win the best provider males.

4. Stretchy and cheap fabrics were invented, meaning a person could have a wardrobe filled with baggy tees and one-size fits all elastic waistband pants. Tailored clothing was pretty much relegated to weddings, proms, or those few office jobs that still required them.
Retarded comment and I would hire a single Dutchman, Scandi or German in pajamas over 100 pajeets in suits. Mind you, it's good to dress smartly but don't pretend like it's a mark of competence. I've seen too many Guptas and Singhs to believe that.
 
Retarded comment and I would hire a single Dutchman, Scandi or German in pajamas over 100 pajeets in suits. Mind you, it's good to dress smartly but don't pretend like it's a mark of competence. I've seen too many Guptas and Singhs to believe that.
Pajeets and singhs dress well as a hack to get people to overestimate their abilities, because they understand that most humans are wired to see the person who puts more effort into their appearance as a superior worker who is less inclined towards laziness and criminality. Of course this is bullshit, because the 80-90s were filled with corrupt corporate executives who dressed well, but stole millions from people. I'm not saying that slobs are evil and lazy. I'm saying that society no longer pressures people to conform to a standard of stylishness and comportment, due to both changes in technology and an increase in resources that lets people live well without forcing them into situations where they need to adhere to a dress code.
 
2. The invention of cars killed hats, as no one but farmers and ranchers needed to wear them anymore.
This is the latest grift by urbanists. Cars began to appear by the 1910s and 1920s, yet hat-wearing still dominated until the 1960s. (It is similar to the "no suburbs until the 1950s myth). It doesn't even make sense, either--by that token, Manhattan and New York would still be full of unironic hat-wearers (they aren't).

because the 80-90s were filled with corrupt corporate executives who dressed well, but stole millions from people.
Other than Mickey Monus, Robert Maxwell, and the Enron guys, I can't think of any other examples that aren't hyperbole (including screwing around with stocks).
 
The hardest workers in my industry are usually rewarded with more, shittier work. Most people strike a balance between getting it done safely(e.g. slowly) and doing it efficiently as a result. That, and there's a strict set of guidelines about what we're allowed to do and not do(that the company often ignores anyway).
The only guys that get favoritism are nepo hires and the guys who work with the tools the company can't admit are extremely dangerous.
 
The effort that goes into work should directly correlate into the respect you're given as a worker. Even if it's pretend respect that amounts to nothing.

I used to work a job where the dress code was basically just polo and slacks, but many people dressed well. I'd wear a blazer, pressed slacks, proper tie, much higher standard than dress code required, but it didn't look out of place. I worked 11-12 hour shifts daily, even though I only really needed to do 10 and could leave whenever I wanted. However, the job treated me with respect, the people I worked with were friendly, out clients were kind. I didn't complain because I loved the job even if it didn't pay the best.

Now I have a job that pays more but the people are assholes, everyone is a narc, there's zero respect from management, and you're expected to be a whipping boy without complaint. So, you're lucky if I show up in uniform and on time. On my second year of this job so I don't think they can even fire me because they can't retain anybody.
 
On my second year of this job so I don't think they can even fire me because they can't retain anybody.
They like it more when people quit themselves. HR has a log of applicants to go thru. They will find your replacement in no time.
However it may be like one of the previous CEO's delusions: We don't need him, we have a line of people waiting outside for work. HR: No one applied for this position in last 3 months.
They have been looking for someone for a year now after replacement quit.
 
They like it more when people quit themselves. HR has a log of applicants to go thru. They will find your replacement in no time.
However it may be like one of the previous CEO's delusions: We don't need him, we have a line of people waiting outside for work. HR: No one applied for this position in last 3 months.
They have been looking for someone for a year now after replacement quit.
It's HR's fault for looking for a unicorn, basically "5 years in this industry, be at constant beck and call 24/7, fluent in three languages, Master's degree in Arbitrarybullshitology, and work for peanuts".
 
It's HR's fault for looking for a unicorn, basically "5 years in this industry, be at constant beck and call 24/7, fluent in three languages, Master's degree in Arbitrarybullshitology, and work for peanuts".
If they only possessed some self reflection to understand such unicorns actually exist, but they have much better options than working for this sweatshop.
 
A lot of Gen Z has decided to quiet quit if the job doesn't meet their level of high prestige, either socially or financially. This then leads to a competency crisis of sorts, which is then perpetuated by them critiquing others who do want to work hard. It may sound fine, until you're at the receiving end of the competency crisis.
 
Anyone else unable to help but stare with disdain at people walking around in public in pajama pants or other loungewear. Put some jeans on or something.
 
Back