WTF-Inc is hiring
-
@joe.edwards said:
...I know Kung Fu.
Show me.
(door bursts open)
joe.edwards is fighting snoofle!
-
@eViLegion said:
@Ronald said:
The one on the left looks like a shift manager at Kinko's on his day off. The one on the right looks like a successful regional manager at Kinko's.
Which just goes to show how wrong peoples perceptions can be... because they're both just a tubby douchebag.
It's like those "before and after" weight-loss pictures. The before is the woman with messed-up hair, with her belly hanging out and a cheap bikini; the after is the same woman with professionally-done hair and makeup, a $1000 bikini, and her muscles all crunched up. Same woman, 10 minutes apart, and "30 pounds" lighter.
If the guy on the left was looking intently into the camera, with his arm held in an agressive pose, I'd think he'd be capable of anything (Well, maybe not leaping over tall buildings in a single bound...)
-
@Ronald said:
This is hardly a suit. Plus it's always possible to find a picture on Google of someone who looks stupid in a suit, that does not change the fact that they look better than if they were wearing a casual alternative. It's a relative question not absolute.
Which one do you think would be taken more seriously for a corporate gig like a SAP rollout?
The one on the left looks like a shift manager at Kinko's on his day off. The one on the right looks like a successful regional manager at Kinko's.
I guess in most cases the suit will be an advantage especially if the first interview is held by HR drones that have 0 clue. But I you get a position with no knowlegde of the subject like your datawarehouse friend thats just a poor interview process. Really poor.I mean for such a rate I would at least require 1 reference of a smiliar project.
In the unlikely case that I'm the interviewer that suit could actually be a disadvanatge. Yeah, I'm not normal. But If you need to impress with your looks it means you need to because you lack skill.
-
If the interviewer is a woman, the suit is irrelevant. All she's going to look at is your shoes.
-
@da Doctah said:
If the interviewer is a woman, the suit is irrelevant. All she's going to look at is your shoes.
Only if there are mirrors.
-
I can't believe there's this much kicking against the idea that there is generally an advantage to dressing smartly in a professional environment. Sure, at some point you may get to double your fees whilst turning up to meetings in socks, sandals, and a dirty t-shirt as a sign that you're the guru in your field, but that doesn't happen to everyone, and it doesn't happen early on.
$1000 is not a lot to be wearing if you need to wear a suit for work. You can't get even a half-decent suit under $500. A pair of fairly good shoes will set you back a minimum of a couple of hundred dollars. Add a nice shirt and tie and some underwear, and you're about at a thousand bucks.
Of course, you don't need to wear different clothes and shoes every day, but you need a few things to rotate and combine in different ways. Say five thousand dollars' worth. You'd look to refresh the whole lot on a rolling basis every ten years or so, making about $500 a year, or two to three dollars a day. Put like that, if you're earning hundreds of dollars a day as a contractor, it's hard to see why you wouldn't spend more like five dollars a day on your work clothes, since they're clearly a tool which allows you to earn more.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
I can't believe there's this much kicking against the idea that there is generally an advantage to dressing smartly in a professional environment.
If by "dressing smartly" you mean literally "dressing smartly" (that is, dressing in a way that your audience will respect and communicates your message), then nobody's arguing against that.
If by "dressing smartly" you mean, "wearing a suit", then there's no advantage to that in the professional environment I'm a part of. On the contrary; it'll make people suspicious that you're trying to mislead them. Insurance salesmen wear suits, not programmers.
@TDWTF123 said:
Sure, at some point you may get to double your fees whilst turning up to meetings in socks, sandals, and a dirty t-shirt as a sign that you're the guru in your field, but that doesn't happen to everyone, and it doesn't happen early on.
If you're interviewing for an indie game company or a 4-man web startup, then wearing socks, sandals and a t-shirt is "dressing smartly". If you wore a suit, you'd get nothing but snickering.
@TDWTF123 said:
Put like that, if you're earning hundreds of dollars a day as a contractor, it's hard to see why you wouldn't spend more like five dollars a day on your work clothes, since they're clearly a tool which allows you to earn more.
Except it's not "clearly a tool which allows you to earn more". That's ridiculous.
-
That's the best one. It's like BP posting a wanted ad: looking for an expert in high-volume offshore driling, must be able to build a drilling riser with recycled beer cans and duct tape
Um, if you look at their safety record ...
-
@TDWTF123 said:
I can't believe there's this much kicking against the idea that there is generally an advantage to dressing smartly in a professional environment. Sure, at some point you may get to double your fees whilst turning up to meetings in socks, sandals, and a dirty t-shirt as a sign that you're the guru in your field, but that doesn't happen to everyone, and it doesn't happen early on.
Don't bother man. I got excoriated earlier for mentioning that style isn't entirely worthless to keep track of. And they're still making fun of me for saying I own, and sometimes wear, a blue dress shirt with light pink stripes.
My current problem is that I haven't been working out lately so my gut is pretty bad, but I don't want to buy an expensive shirt that won't fit when I start working out again.
-
If the $70K maximum is per DAY, I have a solution for them (might be able to achieve the goals if it is per week....)
-
@blakeyrat said:
If you're interviewing for an indie game company or a 4-man web startup, then wearing socks, sandals and a t-shirt is "dressing smartly". If you wore a suit, you'd get nothing but snickering.
If you're interviewing for an indie game company or a 4-man web startup, you can't afford a suit so that's not an issue. All you need is a Github account, a few energy drinks and call everybody Dude; and bang, you are on your way to an exciting adventure that pays less than punching in at the tire factory.
So basically the options are:
- Work for a big company that preys on the young and use a casual dress code as a perk (FB, Google). It's ok for people starting their career but there is a glass ceiling for Dudes.
- Work for a startup that preys on the young and use a casual dress code, ping-pong tables, flexible schedules and Git as a perk. There is no money there unless you own the company, or if you get in the stock options plan and they win the startup lottery. (Odds = near 0).
- Work for a regular company and wear business casual (the Best Buy dress code). Again, glass ceiling.
- Work for a regular company and wear business formal*. There you go, higher-ups take you seriously and the reception girls will warm up to you. If you are a contractor, ka-tching.
You can also opt for the luxury of looking down on people who dress business formal and enjoy making snide comments about suits. Then wonder why management never listens to you and why the expensive consultants who come in and merely repeat your ideas get all the credit.
* you can't go half-cocked on that one otherwise you'll look like a used car salesman and it's worse than showing up at work wearing a Star Trek uniform
-
@Ronald said:
Work for a regular company and wear business formal*. There you go, higher-ups take you seriously and the reception girls will warm up to you. If you are a contractor, ka-tching.
Bullshit.
@Ronald said:
You can also opt for the luxury of looking down on people who dress business formal and enjoy making snide comments about suits. Then wonder why management never listens to you and why the expensive consultants who come in and merely repeat your ideas get all the credit.
Management doesn't wear suits.
Where do you live, Ronald? Somewhere fucking formal as fuck? New York City?
-
@blakeyrat said:
Management doesn't wear suits.
I see. You work in Business Casual Land, where you can spot the big cheese because they wear $50 polo shirts and on good days a belt that matches the shoes. The kind of company that has Casual Friday where managers and HR girls wear bluejeans that they obviously bought at Old Navy only for that specific purpose.
If that works for you, fine, as long are you have no problem getting stuck in the 5-digit income forever and as long as you consider that "a perk" is drinking cheap cola in styrofoam cups while waiting in line for a half-cooked hot dog (served by the CEO!) at company bbq events. Have a nice free cup of coffee at the Flavia machine for me!
-
Dude, Ronald, you keep ignoring my question as to where you are. Your advice might be valid for SOMEWHERE in the world, but certainly not for where I am.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Dude, Ronald, you keep ignoring my question as to where you are. Your advice might be valid for SOMEWHERE in the world, but certainly not for where I am.
He ignored my question about why Inc is preferable to LLC as well. Corporations need to have officers, meetings, bylaws, stock certificates... A lot of BS I'm not interested in dealing with.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Dude, Ronald, you keep ignoring my question as to where you are. Your advice might be valid for SOMEWHERE in the world, but certainly not for where I am.
I think he may have said sometime in the past, but I don't remember, and without knowing what to search for, my google-fu isn't up to finding it. The difference between his perspective and our may also be due to working in different industries. I know some people on here work in financial services, and their stereotypical stuffiness may extend to the peons in the back office.@Ronald said:
@blakeyrat said:
Business Casual Land, yes. Three of our company VPs didn't even bother wearing a coat and tie for their portraits on our web site. The rest of that drivel, no.Management doesn't wear suits.
I see. You work in Business Casual Land, where you can spot the big cheese because they wear $50 polo shirts and on good days a belt that matches the shoes. The kind of company that has Casual Friday where managers and HR girls wear bluejeans that they obviously bought at Old Navy only for that specific purpose.
If that works for you, fine, as long are you have no problem getting stuck in the 5-digit income forever
I like maintaining a professional appearance. I wear slacks and a dress shirt. I haven't worn a tie to work for over 15 years, (unless maybe I was going somewhere fancy after work), and I'm typically one of the best dressed men in the building (possibly excepting Marketing droids in customer-facing situations). If I wore a tie to work, every person who saw me would ask, "Where are you interviewing?" No, I'm not stuck in a 5-figure income (although after Uncle Sam and my ex-wife are through, I'm lucky if I have any digits to the left of the decimal).
-
@blakeyrat said:
@TDWTF123 said:
It's very simple, Blakey: corporate is where the money is, and where 'smart' means a suit.I can't believe there's this much kicking against the idea that there is generally an advantage to dressing smartly in a professional environment.
If by "dressing smartly" you mean literally "dressing smartly" (that is, dressing in a way that your audience will respect and communicates your message), then nobody's arguing against that.
If by "dressing smartly" you mean, "wearing a suit", then there's no advantage to that in the professional environment I'm a part of. On the contrary; it'll make people suspicious that you're trying to mislead them. Insurance salesmen wear suits, not programmers.
@TDWTF123 said:
Sure, at some point you may get to double your fees whilst turning up to meetings in socks, sandals, and a dirty t-shirt as a sign that you're the guru in your field, but that doesn't happen to everyone, and it doesn't happen early on.
If you're interviewing for an indie game company or a 4-man web startup, then wearing socks, sandals and a t-shirt is "dressing smartly". If you wore a suit, you'd get nothing but snickering.
@TDWTF123 said:
Put like that, if you're earning hundreds of dollars a day as a contractor, it's hard to see why you wouldn't spend more like five dollars a day on your work clothes, since they're clearly a tool which allows you to earn more.
Except it's not "clearly a tool which allows you to earn more". That's ridiculous.
Even if you're working for hipsters, you'll still give a better impression if you spend hundreds of dollars on ludicrous hipster clothes than if you busk it. You might be surprised, though, to realise that hipsters usually still employ accountants who wear suits, rather than hipster clothes, because they want someone who seems professional.
For what it's worth, I'm not chasing the big bucks and don't need to wear a suit much. When I do, though, I wear a very good suit. There's a lot to be said for deciding that working in the kind of environment where you need to wear a suit isn't worth the money you get - but you should understand that trade-off and make it deliberately.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
@blakeyrat said:
@TDWTF123 said:
It's very simple, Blakey: corporate is where the money is, and where 'smart' means a suit.I can't believe there's this much kicking against the idea that there is generally an advantage to dressing smartly in a professional environment.
If by "dressing smartly" you mean literally "dressing smartly" (that is, dressing in a way that your audience will respect and communicates your message), then nobody's arguing against that.
If by "dressing smartly" you mean, "wearing a suit", then there's no advantage to that in the professional environment I'm a part of. On the contrary; it'll make people suspicious that you're trying to mislead them. Insurance salesmen wear suits, not programmers.
@TDWTF123 said:
Sure, at some point you may get to double your fees whilst turning up to meetings in socks, sandals, and a dirty t-shirt as a sign that you're the guru in your field, but that doesn't happen to everyone, and it doesn't happen early on.
If you're interviewing for an indie game company or a 4-man web startup, then wearing socks, sandals and a t-shirt is "dressing smartly". If you wore a suit, you'd get nothing but snickering.
@TDWTF123 said:
Put like that, if you're earning hundreds of dollars a day as a contractor, it's hard to see why you wouldn't spend more like five dollars a day on your work clothes, since they're clearly a tool which allows you to earn more.
Except it's not "clearly a tool which allows you to earn more". That's ridiculous.
Even if you're working for hipsters, you'll still give a better impression if you spend hundreds of dollars on ludicrous hipster clothes than if you busk it. You might be surprised, though, to realise that hipsters usually still employ accountants who wear suits, rather than hipster clothes, because they want someone who seems professional.I'm with Blakey on this one. He says: if you're a programmer, you don't need a suit. You say: well in corporate, you do. But "corporate", (as in, "corporate says we have to fill in more TPS reports"), means "management" unless I'm not as familiar with American vernacular as I think I am. Well management isn't made up of programmers, now is it? Next, you make the point that hipsters usually want accountants who wear suits. First of all: how in the fuck do you know what hipsters want, or even who belongs in this exceedingly vague demographic? Is it written in stone somewhere that hipsters prefer accountants in suits? I'd like a pic of that stone please. Secondly, and more importantly, accountants aren't programmers either.
If Blakey makes point A and you argue against point B which has nothing to do with A, with arguments that consist mostly of speculation, then that's fine (although it's also a bit annoying), but I think you should realize that you are a real moron if you think that that means you've just shattered Blakey's point.
-
@toon said:
He says: if you're a programmer, you don't need a suit. You say: well in corporate, you do. But "corporate", (as in, "corporate says we have to fill in more TPS reports"), means "management" unless I'm not as familiar with American vernacular as I think I am.
No, corporate means the suit-wearing, IBM/SAP/Lotus fucking Notes-buying professional world. Finance, corporate law, and so-on. You know, the thing we've been talking about? It doesn't matter whether you're a programmer or a painter-decorator: there's lots more money in working for banks or similar, or the people who work for them, than in regular, more casual work. That's not a good or bad thing in itself, just a thing that is undoubtedly true - and so even a painter-decorator who wants to work in that area has to turn up to meetings wearing a suit.And before you ask me again how I know, the answer's the same as below: been there, done that. Painting walls is boring, but getting a grand a day in your early twenties to paint walls, simply because you turned up to quote in a suit, isn't so bad. @toon said:
Next, you make the point that hipsters usually want accountants who wear suits. First of all: how in the fuck do you know what hipsters want
Experience. I've worked for lots of small startups and similar of the type we're talking about. 'Hipster' was a humourous generalisation: they were called something different ten years ago. Come to think of it, I've also worked for the accountants. @toon said:Secondly, and more importantly, accountants aren't programmers either.
Missing the point there quite spectacularly. It's not that accountants are programmers or not, but that when even those 'trendy' software houses with casual dress codes employ an accountant, they want someone they feel is professional and competent - and even to hipsters, that guy is the guy in a suit. Even hipsters don't really trust people who dress like hipsters to be competent and professional.@toon said:
If Blakey makes point A and you argue against point B which has nothing to do with A, with arguments that consist mostly of speculation, then that's fine (although it's also a bit annoying), but I think you should realize that you are a real moron if you think that that means you've just shattered Blakey's point.
You probably ought to work on your reading comprehension skills before calling people morons.
-
@toon said:
I'm with Blakey on this one. He says: if you're a programmer, you don't need a suit. You say: well in corporate, you do. But "corporate", (as in, "corporate says we have to fill in more TPS reports"), means "management" unless I'm not as familiar with American vernacular as I think I am.
All it means is that if you want to make good money in IT, you don't go working for a small mom & pop shop. You go work for a big company (this is what "corporate" means). And you can achieve some success in a big company by wearing business casual clothes, but your odds of being taken seriously are a lot better if you dress up. That's all there is to it.
Now you have to consider the context. If you work in the IT department for an ad agency in NYC, the dress code is different than if you work at Wells Fargo HQ in San Diego. But as a rule of thumb, a quality suit will open more doors in a large company than a polo shirt and $45 chinos. No magic there, just common sense.
As for choosing to work in smaller companies: it's a career choice. But unless you end up working for Renaissance Technologies or another "small" company that makes billions, you are not likely to find gigs that pay $250 per hour, while this is very common in larger organizations such as banks or insurance companies - as long as you look the part. There is nothing wrong with taking a low salary and work on cool stuff or taking huge fees and working on boring stuff (it's usually one or the other); but the initial discussion was about ways to increase income, and from my experience dressing up does the job.
I'm getting a bit annoyed with this butt-head attitude common to many programmers. They can't see the big picture and just keep hammering at details that bear no relevance whatsoever. The suit thing is a perfect example of that; because they think it should not matter how someone looks they dress like tourists and when they are not taken seriously by clients or management they get pissed. It's like a guy who is out of shape, doesn't shower and wears wrinkled clothes then gets turned down by every single girl he is asking out, yet he blames the girls, and if you bring up their weight or greasy looks they come up with the fact that the fat dude from Lost is married to a cute chick so "clearly" being fat or disgusting is not the issue. There is just no way to get a discussion going with this kind of logic.
-
@joe.edwards said:
@blakeyrat said:
Dude, Ronald, you keep ignoring my question as to where you are. Your advice might be valid for SOMEWHERE in the world, but certainly not for where I am.
He ignored my question about why Inc is preferable to LLC as well. Corporations need to have officers, meetings, bylaws, stock certificates... A lot of BS I'm not interested in dealing with.I missed that part of the discussion. I know that LLCs are getting popular but like an incorp filing for S status there are consequences - the loss or profits are passed to the shareholders directly (even if they don't receive it) so there is less wiggle room to shuffle money around. Also usually a LLC requires at least two people so unless you have a trusted business partner it can be an issue.
Even choosing to file or not for the S status is an open question. People who don't understand accounting will immediately jump on the S bandwagon ("otherwise tax is DOUBLE!") but it's really not that clear cut. If you want to funnel a large income and spread it over a long time it's easier with a basic C incorp; as an example you could decide to work like a madman for 2 years then take 5 years off, and pay youself the same salary for the entire 7 years. This is not a scenario likely to happen with a S or LLC, you cannot bump income it all goes down on the books that same year. So it really depends.
From a legal entity point of view I don't think there is a major difference for the client, even when it's the government. But to some extent it could make things easier to have an S incorp because it shows that all the owners are American citizens (which is mandatory for some contracts with the government) and I know of one situation where an RFP specifically excluded LLC but it was in the early days. Nowadays I don't see any mention one way or the other, but who's to say the stink is totally gone. LLC smells cheap, like people who buy a black Hyundai Sonata because it looks a little like a Mercedes for 1/3 of the price.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
And before you ask me again how I know, the answer's the same as below: been there, done that. Painting walls is boring, but getting a grand a day in your early twenties to paint walls, simply because you turned up to quote in a suit, isn't so bad.
Okay, then let me ask you this: how do you know you wouldn't have gotten the quote if you hadn't worn the suit? Keep in mind, I'm from a different country here. It may well be (but this is bizarre to me) that in the United States, you need to buy a suit to get a quote as a painter/decorator, but over here, I think wearing something nice is good enough and the portfolio is more important, even in corporate settings. It would depend on the quote though, it makes a difference if you need to paint a big fence for a few thousand bucks, or they're looking for a company that will be doing the interior decoration of five office buildings, each of which hosts 2,000 workers. And even then I can imagine a gig like that going to someone who is not in an expensive suit (although I don't think they can pull that off looking shabby).
@TDWTF123 said:
'Hipster' was a humourous generalisation: they were called something different ten years ago.
You skip my underlying point as if it is unimportant, which is that you're saying "hipster", a word that arguably does not have a definition, so you can say whatever you want about them and nobody can say you're wrong.
@TDWTF123 said:
@toon said:
Secondly, and more importantly, accountants aren't programmers either.
Missing the point there quite spectacularly. It's not that accountants are programmers or not, but that when even those 'trendy' software houses with casual dress codes employ an accountant, they want someone they feel is professional and competent - and even to hipsters, that guy is the guy in a suit. Even hipsters don't really trust people who dress like hipsters to be competent and professional.
@toon said:If Blakey makes point A and you argue against point B which has nothing to do with A, with arguments that consist mostly of speculation, then that's fine (although it's also a bit annoying), but I think you should realize that you are a real moron if you think that that means you've just shattered Blakey's point.
You probably ought to work on your reading comprehension skills before calling people morons.I think I get the point just fine. Because "trendy" software houses (which is IMO an acceptably specific term) would probably consider the attire of a programmer who shows up to the interview in a three-piece pinstripe, as hurting his/her odds of getting hired. And blakey's point was that maybe suits make a positive difference to your credibility, but probably not if you're a programmer. Making a point about accountants does not invalidate Blakey's point, which was about programmers. Programmers are not the same as accountants, accountants are not the same as programmers. So in summary, I point out that Blakey makes a point about apples, and you tried to defeat his point by applying it to oranges, and now you're saying *I* am the one with bad reading comprehension somehow.
Therefore, TDWTF123, it is, in fact, "that accountants are programmers or not".
Let me iterate, because I think I did not make that clear enough: I don't think you make moronic points; in fact, I think you make very good ones. It's just that you were using yours against Blakey's and yours don't apply to his.
-
@Ronald said:
@toon said:
I'm with Blakey on this one. He says: if you're a programmer, you don't need a suit. You say: well in corporate, you do. But "corporate", (as in, "corporate says we have to fill in more TPS reports"), means "management" unless I'm not as familiar with American vernacular as I think I am.
All it means is that if you want to make good money in IT, you don't go working for a small mom & pop shop. You go work for a big company (this is what "corporate" means). And you can achieve some success in a big company by wearing business casual clothes, but your odds of being taken seriously are a lot better if you dress up. That's all there is to it.
Now you have to consider the context. If you work in the IT department for an ad agency in NYC, the dress code is different than if you work at Wells Fargo HQ in San Diego. But as a rule of thumb, a quality suit will open more doors in a large company than a polo shirt and $45 chinos. No magic there, just common sense.
As for choosing to work in smaller companies: it's a career choice. But unless you end up working for Renaissance Technologies or another "small" company that makes billions, you are not likely to find gigs that pay $250 per hour, while this is very common in larger organizations such as banks or insurance companies - as long as you look the part.
I'm not disputing that, but I feel that some of us are making the implication that working for big companies and being taken seriously there and making lots of money, is the same thing as being taken seriously period. That, I disagree with.
@Ronald said:
There is nothing wrong with taking a low salary and work on cool stuff or taking huge fees and working on boring stuff (it's usually one or the other); but the initial discussion was about ways to increase income, and from my experience dressing up does the job.
That initial part of the discussion has eluded me and I figured we were simply discussing whether or not you need a suit to be taken seriously or not. So that's not very smart of me. Everything I've said in this discussion, I said from that POV. Sorry!
@Ronald said:
I'm getting a bit annoyed with this butt-head attitude common to many programmers. They can't see the big picture and just keep hammering at details that bear no relevance whatsoever. The suit thing is a perfect example of that; because they think it should not matter how someone looks they dress like tourists and when they are not taken seriously by clients or management they get pissed. It's like a guy who is out of shape, doesn't shower and wears wrinkled clothes then gets turned down by every single girl he is asking out, yet he blames the girls, and if you bring up their weight or greasy looks they come up with the fact that the fat dude from Lost is married to a cute chick so "clearly" being fat or disgusting is not the issue. There is just no way to get a discussion going with this kind of logic.
I think there's a difference between dressing like a tourist on the one hand, and on the other hand having a decent pair of pants on and a non-brosephy T-shirt, or a short-sleeved collared shirt or something. And I also think that many software developers have trouble getting their points across in a conversation. Especially if they're "in the zone" and a manager interrupts them, puts them on the spot, so they become confused because they can't adjust quickly enough, causing said manager to think they've caught them not knowing their shit, not knowing that this is just how the brain works (book tip for everyone: "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman). Those guys, I feel, are the suits some programmers have a problem with. I know I've had a manager like that, and I definitely have a problem with his attitude.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying there's a grey area between "suit" and "tourist", and that communication skills mean a lot, and I think those are being overlooked in this discussion. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a correlation between being greasy and dressing like a tourist on one hand, and having bad communication skills on the other hand. For me personally, I've found that the biggest factor in being taken seriously, is my chops in a conversation. I'll bet that showing confidence, and saying things that make sense and people can rely on, is ultimately more important than how you dress, as long as you don't dress too shabbily.
Having said that, I've never held a $250 an hour gig at a big company.
-
@toon said:
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying there's a grey area between "suit" and "tourist", and that communication skills mean a lot, and I think those are being overlooked in this discussion. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a correlation between being greasy and dressing like a tourist on one hand, and having bad communication skills on the other hand. For me personally, I've found that the biggest factor in being taken seriously, is my chops in a conversation. I'll bet that showing confidence, and saying things that make sense and people can rely on, is ultimately more important than how you dress, as long as you don't dress too shabbily.
Having said that, I've never held a $250 an hour gig at a big company.
I agree, a suit is no silver bullet. It's a plus. If you have an horrible attitude and spit all over people when you talk, it won't really help.
However communication, while a good thing, is not enough especially when you have to deal with idiots. Show up to a meeting with a client that is convinced that cloud computing has to do with satellites (because they are in the cloud) and you'll see what I mean. All you need with those people is to look sharp, agree with them and ask where one could get a decent cup of coffee in the area. The resume does the intro, and the suit does the talking. Unfortunately to get in that room with a wealthy imbecile you need to make your way out of the cubicles; one of the first step, in my experience, is to dress up.
But it's all subjective. Some highly successful people never wear nice clothes; some of them are famous for that (Bill Gates, the Facebook guy, etc). But those people are self-made, they did not climb a corporate ladder. And it's not everyone that can achieve that.
-
@toon said:
Okay, then let me ask you this: how do you know you wouldn't have gotten the quote if you hadn't worn the suit? Keep in mind, I'm from a different country here. It may well be (but this is bizarre to me) that in the United States, you need to buy a suit to get a quote as a painter/decorator, but over here, I think wearing something nice is good enough and the portfolio is more important, even in corporate settings. It would depend on the quote though, it makes a difference if you need to paint a big fence for a few thousand bucks, or they're looking for a company that will be doing the interior decoration of five office buildings, each of which hosts 2,000 workers. And even then I can imagine a gig like that going to someone who is not in an expensive suit (although I don't think they can pull that off looking shabby).
I think you've worked out that we were talking at cross-purposes before, but this is still worth discussing in this context.
How I know is a fair question, and has two answers. One is that in some cases I was all-but told as much, and really the appearance of professionalism was the only advantage I had.The second relies on understanding the corporate mindset - which again is a tool for making more money, although also a tool that many people don't like holding. Corporatism is about process, accountability, and that sort of stuff, so for many people in a corporate system it's more important not to take any risks than to have an outstanding success. They're looking for reliable, rather than a good-odds gamble.
The 'facilities manager' (or whatever they call the caretaker these days) isn't interested in shaving a few hundred or thousand quid of the bank's money: he wants to make sure his back is covered. If Phil the Painter in his paint stained overalls presents a quote on the back of an envelope for a very cheap rate, it might be a great deal. It might be a mistake, though. When I turn up in a suit and present a nicely written quote on good paper with a smart letterhead, with a full specimen contract, from a reputable-sounding company, it can be for quite a bit more and I'll still get the work - because if it later goes down the drain, the person responsible for signing a contract with me can point to the various symbols as having done their due diligence.Oh, and also, I'm not US-based. That was £1k a day, not dollars - and back when a thousand quid was proper money. All from looking professional in a field full of extremely competent but ill-presented tradesmen. For what it's worth, I'm convinced that working with banks is more stress than the money's worth, but working near them is still very lucrative, only without the pressure. @toon said:
I think there's a difference between dressing like a tourist on the one hand, and on the other hand having a decent pair of pants on and a non-brosephy T-shirt, or a short-sleeved collared shirt or something.
Quite a few people think like that. It's not true. Suit or nothing, as far as respectability goes in professional circles. I'm not saying that's necessarily sensible, good, or something I like: it's just the way things are in the world. @toon said:I also think that many software developers have trouble getting their points across in a conversation. Especially if they're "in the zone" and a manager interrupts them, puts them on the spot, so they become confused because they can't adjust quickly enough, causing said manager to think they've caught them not knowing their shit, not knowing that this is just how the brain works (book tip for everyone: "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman).
You're not wrong. Learning to handle that situation is another tool people ought to acquire. If you're prepared with a stock phrase or two, you won't get flustered, and will buy time to think things through properly.
-
Jesus I'm not going to read the reams posted while I was out getting drunk, but here:
@TDWTF123 said:
It's very simple, Blakey: corporate is where the money is, and where 'smart' means a suit.
A lot of wrong things are very simple.
I work in a corporation of 500-ish people. Our CEO doesn't wear a suit (typically). Neither does our CTO, COO, my Director, etc. They aren't hipsters, at least not by Seattle standards.
Why? Because this corporation is in Seattle and Portland where people don't wear suits.
-
@blakeyrat said:
I work in a corporation of 500-ish people. Our CEO doesn't wear a suit (typically). Neither does our CTO, COO, my Director, etc.
That's because those are the people who 'typically' don't need to impress. The atypical days are the days they do need to impress someone. No-one ever said that you can't go out the other side of suit-wearing-to-impress, once you get to that stage. And if you have no-one to impress on a day-to-day basis - that is, bosses or clients - then obviously there's no need to wear a suit every day.
A few years back my dad grew his hair a bit, stopped agreeing to meetings anywhere except his own office, dressed in sandals and a ratty t-shirt (for meetings, he'd always done that when no-one was around) -- and doubled his fees. He's the guy you go to in his narrow, specialised field. You get to that stage, and one way to let everyone know is to deliberately flout the conventions of professionalism as a way of saying that you have your own reputation to rely on in its own right, rather than that accruing to a professional in your field.
If you aren't yet at that stage, and you don't dress professionally, you won't be considered to be professional. But that's fair enough; based on everything you've said, you have solidly working-class attitudes to making money, and prefer to be a well-paid tradesman than a professional.
-
No. It's because you're wrong and full of shit.
Look, I'm not going to say you're universally wrong. But in my area (Pacific Northwest) and in my field (software/IT) you are wrong.
If you're going to convince me otherwise, you need to come up with examples from my area and my field. But you won't be able to. Because you're wrong.
-
@blakeyrat said:
If you're going to convince me otherwise, you need to come up with examples from my area and my field. But you won't be able to. Because you're wrong.
You already provided the examples of successful people in your area and field who know that wearing a suit is beneficial at times: your bosses.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
You already provided the examples of successful people in your area and field who know that wearing a suit is beneficial at times: your bosses.
My bosses neither work in my geographic area nor in my field (software). They don't wear suits, either. In related news, I could wear a suit every day and impress absolutely nobody.The common suit-related mantra is that if it didn't cost $1000, you shouldn't be wearing it. You should also not repeat. So that means that for a week, I need at least $5000 worth of clothes. You should also have a 1.5 week supply to avoid simple rotations. So that's $8000. On clothes. Knock off $1000 for efficiency from things like shoes and belts - so call it $7000. Which you need to refresh at least once every 1.5 years due to wear and style changes.
Here's a list of things that I have bought INSTEAD of suits:
- A house - $100,000
- A professional garage (new construction, fully-equipped) - $26,000
- A sports car (brand new) - $30,000
- All the equipment, fees, etc. to to operate a racing team - $15,000
- A year's worth of racing at every available opportunity - $3000Now, if I'd worn suits instead of jeans and a t-shirt, I wouldn't make a red cent more than I do today, but assuming (hugely incorrectly) that I could ascend from my current position to the empty slot my former boss was kicked out of (we were technically assigned to be some random faraway manager's to do our paperwork while a director takes personal involvement in our actual operations and strategy) I could make a whopping +$30,000. It would take me two years to get there from here just owing to politics, during which I would have spent $14000 on suits. In short, I'd make a grand total of $16000 more that first year by wearing a suit. Experience thus far has told me that I can get raises bigger than that by making noises about quitting due to the stress of peak season.
-
@blakeyrat said:
But in my area (Pacific Northwest) and in my field (software/IT) you are wrong.
Nobody cares about Pacific Northwest. As they say in the clip: "Portland is the city where young people go to retire".
-
@Weng said:
@TDWTF123 said:
You already provided the examples of successful people in your area and field who know that wearing a suit is beneficial at times: your bosses.
My bosses neither work in my geographic area nor in my field (software). They don't wear suits, either. In related news, I could wear a suit every day and impress absolutely nobody.The common suit-related mantra is that if it didn't cost $1000, you shouldn't be wearing it. You should also not repeat. So that means that for a week, I need at least $5000 worth of clothes. You should also have a 1.5 week supply to avoid simple rotations. So that's $8000. On clothes. Knock off $1000 for efficiency from things like shoes and belts - so call it $7000. Which you need to refresh at least once every 1.5 years due to wear and style changes.
Here's a list of things that I have bought INSTEAD of suits:
- A house - $100,000
- A professional garage (new construction, fully-equipped) - $26,000
- A sports car (brand new) - $30,000
- All the equipment, fees, etc. to to operate a racing team - $15,000
- A year's worth of racing at every available opportunity - $3000Now, if I'd worn suits instead of jeans and a t-shirt, I wouldn't make a red cent more than I do today, but assuming (hugely incorrectly) that I could ascend from my current position to the empty slot my former boss was kicked out of (we were technically assigned to be some random faraway manager's to do our paperwork while a director takes personal involvement in our actual operations and strategy) I could make a whopping +$30,000. It would take me two years to get there from here just owing to politics, during which I would have spent $14000 on suits. In short, I'd make a grand total of $16000 more that first year by wearing a suit. Experience thus far has told me that I can get raises bigger than that by making noises about quitting due to the stress of peak season.
You must be one of those people who clip coupons
-
@TDWTF123 said:
@blakeyrat said:
If you're going to convince me otherwise, you need to come up with examples from my area and my field. But you won't be able to. Because you're wrong.
You already provided the examples of successful people in your area and field who know that wearing a suit is beneficial at times: your bosses.I quite specifically said my bosses didn't wear suits, not even the CEO.
You're not in here to debate. You're just being a stupid troll. Go away now.
-
@Ronald said:
@blakeyrat said:
But in my area (Pacific Northwest) and in my field (software/IT) you are wrong.
Nobody cares about Pacific Northwest.
Pfft! Yeah, it's not like there's any computer careers in the Pacific Northwest. You're right, I'm so silly-- I'd be better off starting an IT career in Tulsa.
EDIT: Since the two people I was arguing against gave up on providing arguments and just started trolling, I'm going to declare I win this little debate (trumpet fanfare), take my winnings (jack shit), and unsubscribe from this thread.
-
@spamcourt said:
@dhromed said:
That proves my point. It looks good — for Stallman — and yet I've got a get-out clause because I did say “almost”.@dkf said:
almost anyone looks good when put in a good suit. It's magic.
What about Stallman?
-
@dkf said:
Filed under: not the strangest thing to come out of his ears
I thought it was a Dark Side of the Moon poster.
-
-
Hey Blakey,
I can tell you from the context that these guys are from DC area. "Beltway bandits" is the term. And yes, it's like that there. Full-on Stockholm syndrome bullshit, that they somehow internalize. They were probably poor growing up. On weekends, you will never see so many khaki shorts with shirts tucked in. Hate those fuckers. And yes, they are all posers to some degree.
DC is taking over from NY as the new financial center of the nation and it is off the hook with lobbying, defense, corruption (like the DMV), assholes, traffic, poor driving, and stupid frat boys. In that precise order.
It's a cool city to visit, has culture and history and nice museums. Hookers and crack are no problem!
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Ronald said:
@blakeyrat said:
But in my area (Pacific Northwest) and in my field (software/IT) you are wrong.
Nobody cares about Pacific Northwest.
Pfft! Yeah, it's not like there's any computer careers in the Pacific Northwest. You're right, I'm so silly-- I'd be better off starting an IT career in Tulsa.
EDIT: Since the two people I was arguing against gave up on providing arguments and just started trolling, I'm going to declare I win this little debate (trumpet fanfare), take my winnings (jack shit), and unsubscribe from this thread.
My 5 years old nephew does that too. He covers his ears and sings loudly and when you give up on whatever you wanted to tell him he considers that he "won".
Seriously the fact that you consider that a discussion is something one can win or lose tells a lot about your level of maturity. Now back to your room and don't put the volume too loud when you play with your videogames, and remember to brush your teeth before you go to bed.
-
@notchulance said:
Hey Blakey,
I can tell you from the context that these guys are from DC area. "Beltway bandits" is the term. And yes, it's like that there. Full-on Stockholm syndrome bullshit, that they somehow internalize. They were probably poor growing up. On weekends, you will never see so many khaki shorts with shirts tucked in. Hate those fuckers. And yes, they are all posers to some degree.
DC is taking over from NY as the new financial center of the nation and it is off the hook with lobbying, defense, corruption (like the DMV), assholes, traffic, poor driving, and stupid frat boys. In that precise order.
It's a cool city to visit, has culture and history and nice museums. Hookers and crack are no problem!I don't know who "these guys" are but as for me I spend most of the year in either Miami, Las Vegas or Carson city. I have a few clients in Wyoming and Arizona but I don't travel there a lot.
I don't like the DC or NY areas. Out there either people steel your car radio or they barf on your car while you are paying for gas, and that's when you are not stuck in traffic. Also women in the northeast are ugly and they wear ridiculous clothes and glasses that they think are trendy. The british influence is strong in that area.
-
@Ronald said:
You must be one of those people who clip coupons
Nope. I just know how ROI works. If I piss and moan about peak seaso, I get $16000 (Or I make good on my threats and go work elsewhere for $16000 more). If I wear suits, I (theoretically) get $16000.One requires me to take time out from my hobbies and daily life to get shit dry cleaned and tailored and change before going to the gym/bar/whatever and so on and so forth. One requires me to kvetch as scheduled from 8AM-4PM.
One means I'm politically more important and have more deicionmaking responsibilities. One means I have to do management paperwork AND am politically more important and have more decisionmaking capabilities AND requires me to wear a monkey suit and noose.
One means I have to care about our 1.7M 8-month budget deficit and worry about where it came from and how to make it up. The other means I only have to listen and shake my head knowingly when I hear the $1.7M 8-month project I've been working on is going to be a freebie because sales never actually closed the deal and lied to us.
Bottom line: BEING indispensible is better than LOOKING indispensible.
-
@Weng said:
@Ronald said:
You must be one of those people who clip coupons
Nope. I just know how ROI works. If I piss and moan about peak seaso, I get $16000 (Or I make good on my threats and go work elsewhere for $16000 more). If I wear suits, I (theoretically) get $16000.One requires me to take time out from my hobbies and daily life to get shit dry cleaned and tailored and change before going to the gym/bar/whatever and so on and so forth. One requires me to kvetch as scheduled from 8AM-4PM.
One means I'm politically more important and have more deicionmaking responsibilities. One means I have to do management paperwork AND am politically more important and have more decisionmaking capabilities AND requires me to wear a monkey suit and noose.
One means I have to care about our 1.7M 8-month budget deficit and worry about where it came from and how to make it up. The other means I only have to listen and shake my head knowingly when I hear the $1.7M 8-month project I've been working on is going to be a freebie because sales never actually closed the deal and lied to us.
Bottom line: BEING indispensible is better than LOOKING indispensible.
I think you missed the point. Wearing a suit does not mean becoming a manager. If you go back to the Master Plan I provided it's only a first step in becoming a highly paid consultant.
-
@Ronald said:
The one on the left looks like a shift manager at Kinko's on his day off. The one on the right looks like a successful regional manager at Kinko's.
The one on the right looks like a shift manager at Kinko's who has to go to court. Probably for a DUI.
-
@Ronald said:
I don't like the DC or NY areas. Out there either people steal your car radio or they barf on your car while you are paying for gas, and that's when you are not stuck in traffic. Also women in the northeast are ugly and they wear ridiculous clothes and glasses that they think are trendy. The british influence is strong in that area.
(FTFY; too painful not to)If you want to be a really high-paid consultant, you've got to go where the money is, at least some of the time. And wear a decent suit; it's typically necessary but not sufficient, and if it is a proper tailored suit it will be really comfortable (suits are magic). OTOH, the DC traffic didn't look all that bad to me the few times I've been there. Heavy, but mostly moving. I'm used to worse here in the UK. Don't know NYC (except for two terminals at JFK, alas).
There are two reasons traffic is worse here in the UK. Firstly, we have crazy land prices, so minimising land use for transportation is a major goal (so everything is jammed together much more; narrow roads, tight junctions). Secondly, almost all UK cities follow the Hoyt model (like a spiderweb) instead of a grid plan, for historical reasons; you get very congested nodes that way. (OTOH, it's probably better at supporting public transportation, for which the high density nodes are actually a useful thing. Ho hum.)
-
@Weng said:
You seem to be confused. No-one said that wearing a suit will make you happy, just that it will make you money. I'm with you on the whole not-working-too-hard thing, which is why I was semi-retired before I hit thirty, and now spend as much time wrenching on classic cars and so-on as I do working.@TDWTF123 said:
You already provided the examples of successful people in your area and field who know that wearing a suit is beneficial at times: your bosses.
My bosses neither work in my geographic area nor in my field (software). They don't wear suits, either. In related news, I could wear a suit every day and impress absolutely nobody.The common suit-related mantra is that if it didn't cost $1000, you shouldn't be wearing it. You should also not repeat. So that means that for a week, I need at least $5000 worth of clothes. You should also have a 1.5 week supply to avoid simple rotations. So that's $8000. On clothes. Knock off $1000 for efficiency from things like shoes and belts - so call it $7000. Which you need to refresh at least once every 1.5 years due to wear and style changes.
Here's a list of things that I have bought INSTEAD of suits:
- A house - $100,000
- A professional garage (new construction, fully-equipped) - $26,000
- A sports car (brand new) - $30,000
- All the equipment, fees, etc. to to operate a racing team - $15,000
- A year's worth of racing at every available opportunity - $3000Now, if I'd worn suits instead of jeans and a t-shirt, I wouldn't make a red cent more than I do today, but assuming (hugely incorrectly) that I could ascend from my current position to the empty slot my former boss was kicked out of (we were technically assigned to be some random faraway manager's to do our paperwork while a director takes personal involvement in our actual operations and strategy) I could make a whopping +$30,000. It would take me two years to get there from here just owing to politics, during which I would have spent $14000 on suits. In short, I'd make a grand total of $16000 more that first year by wearing a suit. Experience thus far has told me that I can get raises bigger than that by making noises about quitting due to the stress of peak season.
However...
If you only want to look good enough for two years, it's not going to cost $14k. Maybe a quarter of that, or half. Which means that at least hypothetically, you'd be looking at more like $25k extra from the suits. But we're not talking about changing roles. We're talking about maximising the income from the job you do.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@TDWTF123 said:
I directly quoted the bit where you said your bosses sometimes wear suits, as and when required to. And even if I was a stupid troll, surely this is right where I should be?@blakeyrat said:
If you're going to convince me otherwise, you need to come up with examples from my area and my field. But you won't be able to. Because you're wrong.
You already provided the examples of successful people in your area and field who know that wearing a suit is beneficial at times: your bosses.I quite specifically said my bosses didn't wear suits, not even the CEO.
You're not in here to debate. You're just being a stupid troll. Go away now.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
@blakeyrat said:
@TDWTF123 said:
I directly quoted the bit where you said your bosses sometimes wear suits, as and when required to. And even if I was a stupid troll, surely this is right where I should be?@blakeyrat said:
If you're going to convince me otherwise, you need to come up with examples from my area and my field. But you won't be able to. Because you're wrong.
You already provided the examples of successful people in your area and field who know that wearing a suit is beneficial at times: your bosses.I quite specifically said my bosses didn't wear suits, not even the CEO.
You're not in here to debate. You're just being a stupid troll. Go away now.
I have this theory that 3 different people share the blakeyrat login and they don't always get their story straight. Could be a case of dissociative identity disorder or more likely like Morbius he's not a real person, he's a puppet account handled by a forum entertainment firm funded by New Relic (fanmenow.com) and different people work at various times to feed content, some of them are more careless.
-
@dkf said:
the DC traffic didn't look all that bad to me the few times I've been there. Heavy, but mostly moving. I'm used to worse here in the UK. Don't know NYC (except for two terminals at JFK, alas).
In NYC there has been people who were reported missing by their family but after running an ATL on their car the police found them stuck in traffic, near-dehydrated.
-
@Ronald said:
I have this theory that 3 different people share the blakeyrat login and they don't always get their story straight. Could be a case of dissociative identity disorder or more likely like Morbius he's not a real person, he's a puppet account handled by a forum entertainment firm funded by New Relic (fanmenow.com) and different people work at various times to feed content, some of them are more careless.
Sock puppetry by committee?
That committee really needs to set up some submission guidelines, for example:
(1) Never claim not to have said something previously... it usually turns out that you did.
-
@Ronald said:
... if you want to make good money in IT ...
IT != Software Engineering
