Well, to me it would show that you’re willing to do whatever it takes in the job; that if I promote you to waiter, you won’t be complaining when I tell you that to be a waiter you can’t wear dirty shoes, ripped jeans and T-shirts; that if ever I have to send you out of the kitchen to the dining room for something, you might have enough sense to behave appropriately - in short, that you realize that certain situations call for certain types of clothing and certain types of behavior.
Possibly. But couldn’t you get a good (or better) grasp on me by talking to me in the interview? I could also be a total fuck-up whose going to steal the keys and sneak in one night and steal the deep fryer, but have the sense to know that to get the job first, a suit might get me in the door faster. Also, at least two of my buddies there who got hired after me came in for the interview straight from school in jeans, high tops and concert T’s and they got the job, same as me.
Also, say I’m there two years and they decide to promote me to waiter, what would be the better basis for doing so- the way I performed on the job the last two years, or are they going to think back to what I wore on interview day?
The way you performed on the job for the last two years. But if the employer were choosing whether to promote you or a fellow employee who worked as well as you, other factors come into play. You dress for the job you aspire to.
Well, if we’re going to go into hypotheticals here, then you could be an accomplished liar and I can’t tell anything at all about you in the interview. So I might as well just throw darts at a board to decide who to hire.
’
You’re saying you can tell something about an interview candidate by if they have on a blazer. I say you cannot, or better yet, you can tell one thing- they are aware that due to archaic American Customs, they have a better chance of getting the job if they have on a blazer. And the reason for that is that its an archaic remnant of the 50’s when men wore suits anytime they went anywhere almost, and wore them to most any job. Nowadays, most jobs have gone casual, yet for the interview its a holdover- I say why? Just because isn’t answer- many things that used to be standard are no longer standard in society.
No one has offered any real reason why this is a negative, other than “they didn’t bother to put one on that tells me something”, which is not really an answer. I don’t see it as a sign of disrespect for showing up to an interview in khakis if the person interviewing you has them on as well, as well as everyone else in the building. An old fashioned tradition that should go the way of no women in the workplace and no women in pants. At one time a woman going to an interview in pants would be looked on the same way as a man not in a suit, correct? But that changed because it was a silly rule, same here.
I was saying in my job field and my office in particular, no one- VP, CEO, copy clerk- wears suits in the office. Ever. So what is the point in wearing one to the interview, besides the fact that its always been done and I am aware of this tradition?
Two reasons: The applicant doesn’t know your office environment as well as you do. Second, the applicant doesn’t know the mind of the person hiring him. If the interview/er is an unknown, best (for the applicant) to err on the side of overdressing.
If the applicant DOES know the environment and does know that the interviewer is of your mind on the suit wearing, then yes, of course he should wear whatever is appropriate for you and your office and forget the suit. But most applicants are coming in blind, or nearly so.
I’m with you here- in my case I knew many people at the job already so I knew what to expect. But if I didn’t, I still don’t get the mindset of an interviewer being wowed by a suit. Agree to disagree. 
And as an interviewer at a casual dress job, wouldn’t you feel dumb if years down the road you realized a candidiate who could have done wonders for your company was not hired over a suit?
And I’ll say again what I said before - this can give an indication me that the guy is willing to do something that he might consider outdated or silly to get the job. Which means that when I tell him to put a cover sheet on his TPS reports he won’t argue with me about it for a half hour because he thinks it’s stupid.
If I were hiring, it’s not the kind of thing that I would make a must for hiring someone. But it’s something that I would consider.
By that logic, if you only hire people who interview in suits, you’ll never have anyone at your firm bitch about TPS cover sheets?
My logic is that wearing a suit is one of the things to consider in the interview process. It’s not a magical clue.
I don’t have one. If I need to dress up, I do shirt/tie and khaki’s, or I’ve borrowed a suit if I had to. I also wear sweaters or dress shirts if I can, since I dislike ties a little.
Brendon Small
Courtrooms will be the last place ever to go business casual, so trial lawyering requires suits. It’s very much a “uniform” type thing. In fact, I discovered in law school that if you walk into a courthouse in a suit, everyone will assume you’re a lawyer even if you’re not. (“Good morning, counsel.”)
It’s not rational, and it may even be wrong, but it is real that if you are in the business of convincing other people you are right, you have to wear the uniform, and the more expensive the better. (Maybe on the assumption that good lawyers make the most money and thus have the best suits (?)).
Oh, absolutely, I get that. I was being a bit of a shit, and regurgitating back his own reasoning re: potential employees and pointing out how it also applied beyond the exception he was willing to grant.
Of course. I have a number of suits; you should have a summer suit and a few dark suits, with a selection of shirts and ties that would allow you to rotate them through and turn each suit into multiple outfits. You need suits to go with both brown shoes and black, of course; the brown shoe suits usually can double as your summer suits, though dark suits are good year-round.
I don’t usually have to wear ties to work anymore. Nonetheless, occasions always pop up.
I don’t understand how a man can not have a suit. Surely you have families who have weddings, funerals, bar mitzvahs, something?
Wow, I’m late to the game on this one. Yeah, I’ve got a suit but I probably need to have it altered as I think I’ve gained a little weight since I last wore it.
it’s like so many other questions about what to wear: what is everyone else wearing? 
Around here, sports jackets and ties are acceptable, in both Provincial Court and QB chambers. (Although one barrister I know had a QB judge comment adversely on his daring to wear a turtle neck to chambers.)
What are the lawyers wearing to Provincial Court in Edmonton these days? If they’re all in suits (matching jackets and trousers), then maybe that’s the custom there. But if some of them are wearing sports jackets and ties, but different trousers, that would likely be okay. Why not chat with some of them next time you’re in court to ask what the practise is there?
This is one of the reasons why lawyers in Canada, Britain and other Commonwealth countries wear gowns for appearances in certain courts, particularly jury trials. You don’t want the jury to be improperly swayed by extraneous factors like what the lawyers are wearing, so all the lawyers wear the same, natty outfit: white shirt with tabs, long-sleeved black waistcoat, and black gown over it all. Looking at the court-room, you know immediately who the lawyers and other officers of the court are, but there’s no variation in the garb based on the wealth of the lawyer.
I didn’t attend any of either until I was about 22. So I don’t find that surprising.
Well, that excludes when there playing music, but that’s a whole different outfit. I’ve been in the tuxedo market since early teens.
None, I’m afraid. I used to have four, but some people got offended and I had to give them all away. 
This has been answered before, but I’ll say it again: Suits are not required attire at such events in some people’s social circle(s).