The lost art of dressing for the occasion

[Pompidou]

Being a small farmer today would only really work if you had all the other skills and means for self sufficiency. As a livelihood in the usual sense, you'll have a hard time making ends meet, as the corporate-industrial mega farms stamp out every small farm in sight. If you didn't really have to actually sell anything, or buy anything, a self contained economy of sorts, you just might see some benefits. Otherwise, small batch food doesn't trade equitably on the market, and you'd find a losing proposition, albeit an admirable one. You'd eat healthier than the rest of us.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

The rationale is that "we're falling behind the rest of the world in science and technology, so we need more engineers and scientists to catch up." Well, that and stop shipping all our science and tech jobs overseas so the stockholders can have a bigger dividend.

It's the kind of vicious cycle that eventually turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Initially many companies used "(skilled) labor shortages" as a rationale for outsourcing which in turn had the effect of discouraging many people from entering certain trades and professions -- which I believe was the greatest damage done. As a result of this vicious cycle these same companies can now truthfully use a labor shortage as an argument to further justify outsourcing because the pool of skilled workers and professionals in many fields has been significantly reduced by the exodus of discouraged workers -- many of whom are now nearing retirement age or have since passed on. And as I've said in a previous post even if we were somehow able to bring these jobs back we would also have to rebuild an entire skilled work force from scratch -- something that definitely can't be done overnight or even within the time frame of a few years.

http://www.nutsandboltsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/NBT-Poll-Release-teenagers.pdf

 

[scottyrocks]

Oh, here in Seaattle, there are plenty of science and tech jobs paying very good money. They are mostly filled with Indians and Chinese, and the occasional Russians on HB1 visas. It isn't like they will work for less. They are commanding salaries that would have many Americans salivating. I know guys in their mid 20s earning over $100K a year.

How many farmers make that year after year, plus benefits? Nothing against farmers, but it is not always that profitable, so I understand.

My dad, who used to be a farmer tells the old story of a guy standing on the corner selling hammers for 2 dollars that he bought at the hardware store for $3. When asked why he would do that, he says, "it beats farmin'"

Yeah, but I think the point was that when it all comes crashing down, you can't eat a computer chip.

 

[John in Covina]

Being a small farmer today would only really work if you had all the other skills and means for self sufficiency. As a livelihood in the usual sense, you'll have a hard time making ends meet, as the corporate-industrial mega farms stamp out every small farm in sight. If you didn't really have to actually sell anything, or buy anything, a self contained economy of sorts, you just might see some benefits. Otherwise, small batch food doesn't trade equitably on the market, and you'd find a losing proposition, albeit an admirable one. You'd eat healthier than the rest of us.

niche farming and connecting with local restaurants especially with big name Chefs can result in better profits.

 

[John in Covina]

It's the kind of vicious cycle that eventually turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Initially many companies used "(skilled) labor shortages" as a rationale for outsourcing which in turn had the effect of discouraging many people from entering certain trades and professions -- which I believe was the greatest damage done. As a result of this vicious cycle these same companies can now truthfully use a labor shortage as an argument to further justify outsourcing because the pool of skilled workers and professionals in many fields has been significantly reduced by the exodus of discouraged workers -- many of whom are now nearing retirement age or have since passed on. And as I've said in a previous post even if we were somehow able to bring these jobs back we would also have to rebuild an entire skilled work force from scratch -- something that definitely can't be done overnight or even within the time frame of a few years.

http://www.nutsandboltsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/NBT-Poll-Release-teenagers.pdf

One company that i know destroyed many resumes sent to them so they could bring in Koreans to do what i do. Sounds like a lawsuit but that would be hard to pursue.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Yeah, but I think the point was that when it all comes crashing down, you can't eat a computer chip.

Exactly. If you can grow food, you won't starve. And the more independent of technology you are, the better.

 

[Pompidou]

niche farming and connecting with local restaurants especially with big name Chefs can result in better profits.

I'm working pretty hard to connect with small CT farmers for my cafe menu, should it ever get off the ground. Bought a book featuring fifty CT farmers and their stories. In a perfect world, I could help them all.

 

[Gin&Tonics]

niche farming and connecting with local restaurants especially with big name Chefs can result in better profits.

John, that sounds like immigration fraud to me. I can't specifically comment on US laws, but I canada if we had evidence of that sort of thing, we could probably file criminal charges under more than one federal statute. As it stands, I strongly suspect that kind of fraud or at least other fraud in the same vein goes on fairly regularly, but as my department isn't the ones doing the labour market assessment, and the department that does it doesn't actually employ investigators, it's rather frustrating and difficult to make it stick.

If you know specifically that this happened, you may want to get in touch with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and tell them about it.

 

[sheeplady]

It's the kind of vicious cycle that eventually turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Initially many companies used "(skilled) labor shortages" as a rationale for outsourcing which in turn had the effect of discouraging many people from entering certain trades and professions -- which I believe was the greatest damage done. As a result of this vicious cycle these same companies can now truthfully use a labor shortage as an argument to further justify outsourcing because the pool of skilled workers and professionals in many fields has been significantly reduced by the exodus of discouraged workers -- many of whom are now nearing retirement age or have since passed on.

Most of the students I teach are international students. Some are paid to come here by their governments (and they go back home when finished), others have families that scrape together every last dime to even buy a plane ticket. I've taught maybe 10 US students and 160 international students at the graduate level. Most of these students (basically everyone) find really good jobs here in the US. We're essentially importing people to do IT security to the U.S. in droves. Most of these students are very eager to learn, get a job, and immigrate to the US for various reasons, and they are willing to work hard.

I think in the US, most science and engineering jobs have a really bad rap. The hours tend to be intense, it's hard work, and they are relatively low "social status" jobs. In other countries (India in particular) IT and engineering jobs have much higher status, which I think is part of the reason why so many Indian students are coming to the US to study.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

I think in the US, most science and engineering jobs have a really bad rap. The hours tend to be intense, it's hard work, and they are relatively low "social status" jobs. In other countries (India in particular) IT and engineering jobs have much higher status, which I think is part of the reason why so many Indian students are coming to the US to study.

I once read somewhere that on the show I Want to Marry a Millionaire the contestants actually demanded a guarantee from the producers that their millionaire didn't make his fortune from computers. While this is not meant to be an attack on the legal profession it seems like the best and brightest in our country instead become lawyers, no doubt because it's probably one of the few jobs left in America that can't be outsourced.

 

[suits lover]

Sadly the art of dressing for the occasion is almost completly dead Going to church, marriage, restaurant, party, celebration, meeting a women, job interview, travelling or simply for the pleasure of been well dresse. In 2012 it is not friday casual day but always hyper casual day during the whole year. Like other member of the lounge, give me the motivation for going against the grain

 

[Shangas]

In August, I'm expected in Edinburgh, Scotland, for a wedding.

According to my dad, the invitation says: "Formal".

In the 21st century, that's SO open to interpretation, that I literally do NOT know what to pack.

To me, "Formal" means White Tie. That's all it's EVER meant to me. But I don't own any White Tie.

Or does it mean Black Tie? (Which is actually "semi-formal")

Or does it mean a suit? (Which is actually "Casual").

Or does it just mean: "Show up wearing pants"?

It won't be long before that's considered "formal" and casual is walking around with a G-string shoved up your ass.

There was a time when wearing formalwear was considered an honour and a privilege. To wear it meant that someone thought enough of you to invite you to a VERY special occasion. You wanted to look as sharp as a new pin.

These days?

I have no bloody idea. I'm half-thinking of shooting the bride (who is my mother's friend) an email, to ask her what the hell "formal" actually means in the context of her wedding. But I'm hoping that before then, I'll get a chance to read the invitation for myself.

 

[William Stratford]

This is something which struck me as regards the recent "Facebook" wedding, where the groom showed up dressed like this:

top button undone, looking a bit dishevelled, in a suit barely suited to a business meeting....yet he thought this appropriate for his own wedding? :eusa_doh:

 

[Edward]

In August, I'm expected in Edinburgh, Scotland, for a wedding.

According to my dad, the invitation says: "Formal".

...

I have no bloody idea. I'm half-thinking of shooting the bride (who is my mother's friend) an email, to ask her what the hell "formal" actually means in the context of her wedding. But I'm hoping that before then, I'll get a chance to read the invitation for myself.

"Formal" in this context nowadays means a lounge suit. Some of the Scots may go in highland daywear - it will depend from social circle to social circle whether they would regard you doing the same as cultural sensitive or extracting urine (of course some Scots regards the kilt as something Englishmen wear at weddings, but that's a whole nother can o'worms). Your safest bet would be a good lounge suit, as that is by far the norm for "formal" nowadays in the UK. As a general rule of thumb, the lounge suit has replaced the stroller (normally only seen on undertakers, freemasons and doormen these days, alas). Full formal daywear, or some interpretation thereof, is relatively common (especially at bigger and church weddings), but typically limited to the wedding party. It would be considered a bit of a faux pas to arrive in full formal daywear as a guest, unless that had been specified as welcome.

The best course of action, as you have of course already noted, would be to ask the bride.

This is something which struck me as regards the recent "Facebook" wedding, where the groom showed up dressed like this:

top button undone, looking a bit dishevelled, in a suit barely suited to a business meeting....yet he thought this appropriate for his own wedding? :eusa_doh:

Just last week an Evening Standard columnist described Zuckerberg thus:

"If plimsolls had a face, they would be him."

That's about right. He looks to me dressed suitably for a funeral... or perhaps a Reservoir Dogs theme night, though I gather it was navy rather than black as it appears in the photos. One thing in his favour, he didn't follow the beastly trend in the US of adopting black tie as an all-purpose formalwear even in daytime. Irrational as it may be, that grates on me on a par with almost any other sartorial sin (apart from short trousers, obviously ). I'd also say he at least made an effort. If you've seen how the man normally dresses.... plus in his industry they're still far enough behind the times to have the attitude of "suits" as being something worn by "the man". More tuned in folks know that, of course, nowadays the man wears a hoody.

 

[Shangas]

I mean this stuff literally horrifies me. It really does. In the old days, a man getting married wore morning-dress, or military dress, or if an evening-wedding, then White Tie. These days, people show up wearing whatever the hell they want. And yet women still insist on dressing like fairy princesses.

Fairy Princess ~ Elizabethan gong-scourer.

Somebody's slipping here.

 

[Edward]

I mean this stuff literally horrifies me. It really does. In the old days, a man getting married wore morning-dress, or military dress, or if an evening-wedding, then White Tie.

In theory... Practice was somewhat different. My grandparents on one side married just after the war - he in a lounge suit, she in respectable ladies' clothes, but by no means the full white gown. This seems to have been very common among ordinary people in that era. Actually, there's an argument to be made that they were, by the standards of their own day, considerably more casual than modern weddings again by contemporary standards. I've heard of quite a few people from my parents' generation who suffered terribly ott weddings at the behest of various mothers of the bride who saw it as a chance to have by proxy the wedding they really wanted but couldn't have during or immediately after the war years.

Interestingly, one trend I have noticed in recent years in the weddings to which I have been, or or which I have at least seen photos, is a trend towards the men wearing lounge suits instead of formal daywear. Sometimes this is based on preference, though increasingly I hear of grooms who prefer to invest in a suit which they will wear again rather than hire (or, indeed, buy) morning dress for a single day. Some I've known have spent considerably more on the lounge suit than the other options, on that basis. Recession-thinking, as much as anything.

 

[William Stratford]

In theory... Practice was somewhat different. My grandparents on one side married just after the war - he in a lounge suit, she in respectable ladies' clothes, but by no means the full white gown. This seems to have been very common among ordinary people in that era.

Almost certainly an effect of rationing, in the immediate post-war era up until its end in the early 50s?

 

[Edward]

Almost certainly an effect of rationing, in the immediate post-war era up until its end in the early 50s?

Cloth rationing I'm sure had a lot to do with it - that and people just didn't have the disposable income they do now. (I also suspect there wasn't the same social value placed on spending as much as a wedding on average costs nowadays). It seems to me that an awful lot of the wedding trappings thought of today as "traditional" were really only the preserve of the wealthy (as so many things).

 

[William Stratford]

Cloth rationing I'm sure had a lot to do with it - that and people just didn't have the disposable income they do now. (I also suspect there wasn't the same social value placed on spending as much as a wedding on average costs nowadays). It seems to me that an awful lot of the wedding trappings thought of today as "traditional" were really only the preserve of the wealthy (as so many things).

It is true that a wedding is, for all but the highest in society, certainly much more of an event today than for much of history. In our consumerist age, there is this bizarre idea that unless you spend £10-20k on a wedding you are some kind of cheapskate, but in ages past this was nothing like the case. People would though still wear their "sunday best" at the very least, whereas today there is barely even a sunday (as distinguishable from the rest of the week) never mind a sunday best...

Mr Suckerborg is, I suspect, nothing more than an archetypal denizen of such an age.

I still think he looks a half-hearted mess though.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The "wedding industry" as it now stands is largely a post-1960s invention -- weddings in the Era were usually either held in a neighborhood church, in a local magistrate's office, or at home, and the bride's dress was usually either homemade, reused from a mother/grandmother, made by a small local dressmaker, purchased in a local department store -- or even from Sears. The reception, if there was one, would usually be held in the church hall, a lodge hall, or even in the living room of the bride's parents. The predominant idea was that the marriage was what was important, not the wedding itself -- if you look at the only bridal magazine published before the war, "Brides," you'll find as much emphasis given to setting up the marital home and adjusting to married life as you do to planning the ceremony itself. The modern emphasis on pageantry and excess just wasn't there.

The idea of a gigantic budget-busting "bridezilla" affair, in short, is another concept for which you can thank our friends the Boys From Marketing.