Talk:White-collar worker

message: Does someone have a citation for the clergy origin of the term? It seems much more likely that the term white-collar originates much the same as blue-collar did -- that is that white-collar workers typically hold positions that require a dress shirt (usually white) and tie, if not a suit. Granted, I don't have a reference for that origin either, but it is the origin that most people are familiar with, and it certainly makes a lot more sense than the clergy one. --Sm5574 (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin 

message: The proportion of white collar workers in the United States steadily increased from 17% of employees in 1900 to 59.4% (Bureau of the Census, 1990, p380) of employees having white-collar jobs in 1998.
Pardon my saying so, but exactly can a 1990 book give figures on employment in 1998? Presumably this needs rewording, as I'm guessing that the book is correct, but is only relevant for the 1900 figure? Falastur2 Talk 22:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: Also, an increasing number of companies do not have any blue-collar workers because they do not physically manufacture anything within their home country, but instead have an entire hierarchy of white-collar desk workers who mostly dress the same.[citation needed]
I'm not sure this comment is appropriate for an encyclopedia as it seems to be completely arbitrary and demonstrating significant bias on the part of the author - in particular the "who mostly dress the same." comment which is patently ridiculous and bespeaks of a lack of experience with a variety of corporate environments.  As is quite correctly mentioned later in the page, corporate businesses now run the gamut of completely casual to traditional formal, and even in the strictly formal environments there are significant.  Personally, I work in an office where a large proportion of the employees wear business suits, and there is a great deal of variety in the cuts, patterns, colours and styles of suits warn.  There can be more variety in a formal environment than in non-white-collar jobs, where uniforms and safety clothing are more commonly required. FraterNLST (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Second FraterNLST.  In terms of major analytical trends for class or occupational catagory, the fact that a firm is international or transnational doesn't make any difference in terms of its balance in the imperialist / managing country.  Secondly, occupational dress in white collar fields is industry and sectorally dependent, and varies between national, ethnic, and other cultural norms.Fifelfoo (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "All Dressed The Same" 

message: yup. unless you consider exploiting the lower classes hard work. 199.117.69.60 (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So every person branded as "white collar" is a slacker? --T.M.M. Dowd (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Are we allowed to delete these unproductive, ignorant comments from discussion?  Also, I do need to throw my 2 cents in, where would most blue collared "workers" be without white collared workers exploiting (a.k.a. implementing) blue collars' skills or labor to create jobs. Wrightek (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Check out the picture of "office work" in the article, though:  nobody in the picture is actually doing any work.  One woman is texting on her cell phone.  Someone else is wearing the Face of Analytical Minesweeper Problem Solving.  Most seem to be gawking vacantly at colorful glowing panels.  Model of modern efficiency.  --John Moser (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  White collar worker is an oxymoron 

message: White collar should clearly refer to priests, etc., who actually wear white collars. --T.M.M. Dowd (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As already stated, when the term was originated most white collar workers actually wore white collared dress shirts. Wrightek (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Collar is a stupid term 

message: Why is Mad Men, Dilbert, Office Space and the Office at the TOP of the section? Sure they depict white collar workers and it might be an idea to list one or two of them lower in the section but surely they are not relevant enough to the topic to warrant their current position? Also, if they are to be mentioned it might be better to write a 'pop culture' kind of section first?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.216.11 (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also 

message: how is that correct? Socialistguy (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The" Australia? 

message: This should be merged with businessperson. --GoldCoastPrior (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Businessperson