upworthy

capitalism

Pop Culture

Why have people dressed the same for the past 20 years?

The '50s and '70s were totally different as were the '60s and '80s. Why does it still feel like 2005?

via Canva

What year is it?

In 1974, “Happy Days” debuted on TV, and it was a nostalgic look back on the 1950s when greasers wore leather jackets, listened to Bill Haley and the Comets, and drank milkshakes at the local diner. It was a stark comparison to the feeling in the country at the end of the Vietnam War era, where long hair, fringe, and polyester were all the rage. The funny thing is that those eras were only about 20 years apart, but fashion, hairstyles, and culture had changed significantly.

A similar comparison to “Happy Days” could be made to “Dazed and Confused,” a film about teens in 1976 Texas who wore puka shells, satin shirts, and Kangol hats released in 1993 when young Americans were obsessed with grunge and hip-hop styles. But what if someone in 2025 made a film about 2005? Would there be a big difference in any of the fashions or hairstyles? How long would it take to notice that the film is set in the past?


Writer Jason Pargin ("John Dies in the End") recently had a viral hit on TikTok with a video asking whether fashion has changed in the past 20 years. He did so by showing the characters in “The Office” who could walk into any building in corporate America in 2025, and no one would think they’re a time traveler. “The only signifier of which era you're in is what kind of phones they're using and how big the monitors are on their desks,” Pargin notes.

@jasonkpargin

From dec 2023, we got some interesting theories on this

Some commenters felt that Pargin chose a poor example of stagnant style because office attire changes more slowly than streetwear. "The Office is a bad example because business casual hasn’t changed much," one commenter wrote. "Suits from the '60s still look about the same today, with fit slightly changing over the years. Office wear hasn’t changed much, but casual and fashion keep evolving."

Pargin’s video sparked a passionate discussion on various social media platforms. Many people on X felt that he was right and that culture had stagnated because of the internet.


Others agreed, referencing “stuck culture,” defined as “a perceived stagnation in cultural innovation, particularly in media, where there is a notable recycling of ideas and a lack of groundbreaking content.”



Some people say that styles have changed, especially among young people, but older people haven't noticed.


Pargin’s video inspired a response from TikToker Kevin Earl, who believes that economics has played a significant role in why fashion doesn’t change as quickly as it once did. In 2025, clothing is more likely to be mass-produced than in previous decades, and manufacturers want a sure thing, so they produce cheaper clothes that appeal to everyone.

“When considering mass-produced clothes, the kind of stuff available to everyone. Think about the clothes at big box stores like Target, Walmart, Old Navy, places like that. Most of the clothes for sale there have pretty much been the same the last 20, even 30 years. A lot of cheap, basic t-shirts, jeans, tank tops, stuff like that,” Earl says. “Basically, these big stores aren't trying to design and sell clothes that are human-centric. Rather, they're trying to squeeze as much profit as they can out of a minimum viable product.”

In a way, just like Hollywood has been churning out the same predictable superhero films for the past 20 years, clothing manufacturers have been doing the same for your wardrobe.

@kevinearl93

Why have people looked the same the last 20 years? #2000sfashion #2010sfashion #2020sfashion #jasonpargin



Living in a stagnating culture is a drag. But it does open up opportunities for excitement. A stagnating culture means anyone who does something fresh and exciting is bound to capture people’s attention. If the slow pace of change bums you out, take it as an invitation to create something that stands out and captures everyone’s attention. In a world that’s gone beige, a pop of color can really grab people’s attention.

From Your Site Articles
pop culture
Most Shared

Public versus private school — a study found just one factor can make all the difference.

Many parents who want the best education for their children turn to private schools, assuming they will lead their kids to greater success.

At first glance, some data appears to back up that notion. The National Association of Independent Schools and Gallup found that private schools tend to have a greater percentage of graduates going on to higher education, and also tend to attend selective colleges and universities. And a new study shows that overall, children who have attended private schools had better outcomes in nearly all assessed areas of adolescence.

For many parents, this prospect justifies spending thousands of dollars per year in private school tuition. They also bolster support for voucher systems, which distribute public education funds to parents to spend on private schools if they so choose.

Photo by Chris Hondros/Getty Images.

However, a recent study that showed better private school outcomes has a huge caveat.

When family wealth is factored out, the difference in private and public school outcomes disappears entirely.

Researchers at the University of Virginia found that when socioeconomic factors were controlled for in the study, all of the advantages of private school were negated. The study also found "no evidence to suggest that low-income children or children enrolled in urban schools benefited more from private school enrollment."

Kids from the same socioeconomic class have similar outcomes, whether they attend public school or private school. In other words, it's the ability to afford private school that makes the difference, not private school itself. Since private school attendees tend to come from wealthier families, they generally have better outcomes.

But money, not the educational approach or quality of instruction offered in private schools, appears to be the driving factor.

Photo by Chris Hondros/Getty Images.

Parents choose private schools for diverse reasons, and choice is important. But not at the expense of public education.

Not all parents who choose to send their kids to private school do so for academic reasons. Some want their kids to have a religious element to their education. Some favor a specific educational philosophy that can only be found in a private school setting. Having a variety of educational options is a good thing.

However, if a parent feels compelled to send their kids to a private school over a public school for academic reasons, the data doesn't appear to be in their favor. And using such arguments to support voucher programs is disingenuous.

Secretary of Education Betsy Devos proposed an education budget in February that allocated $1 billion to private school vouchers and other school choice initiatives, and slashed $3.6 billion from the Department of Education. "So many of America's poorest children — especially African American and Hispanic children — attend failing public schools that afford them little hope of fulfilling their great potential," President Trump said in his budget summary.

But if our government's job is to make sure that children have equal access to quality education, we need more support for publicly funded neighborhood schools, not less. If private schools aren't proven to offer a better quality education, then taking money from public schools to provide private school vouchers doesn't make sense.

This data reinforces the fact that issues in our educational system largely stem from economic inequality.

Educational opportunity starts at home, and homes and communities that are struggling are automatically at a disadvantage. Though improving public schools is important, perhaps addressing economic inequality in general would do more for U.S. education than school choice programs or public education overhauls — and would ensure that more children reach their full potential.

More

A homeless man says he got 100s of job offers when his story went viral. That's a problem.

On July 27, a tweet about a homeless man looking for work went viral.

David Casarez, a web developer and Texas A&M graduate, was looking for work in the Bay Area, where he'd moved to achieve his dream of working in Silicon Valley. Eventually, Casarez had to move into his car because he couldn't afford housing — then it was repossessed. Now he sleeps on park benches.

He took to a crosswalk with a sign and hundreds of copies of his resume. Someone passing by took one and posted it to Twitter.

The tweet was shared over 100,000 times. Casarez told The New York Post that he's since had hundreds of job offers from companies like Google and Pandora. And while he was celebrated far and wide for his grit, the reality of Casarez's situation is far from a fairytale: "tonight, I'll be back on my bench in Rengstorff Park," he said.

On the surface, this story is one of triumph, but it exposes a huge problem in America.

When we read stories like this, we want to feel good about the fact that people help other people (they do!) and that those who are struggling get the support they need (that sometimes happens too!). But there's a problem with that — and it's the fact that support like this isn't built into our communities. And that trend is troubling, especially when so many people need help.

Homelessness is a huge problem. And it won't be solved by virality.

According to the latest statistics, more than half a million people are homeless in the U.S. on any given night. And prevalent myths about homelessness — that it's caused by laziness and not systemic issues, that homeless people just aren't trying hard enough to succeed, or that a job guarantees that one will have a place to live, to name a few — don't help the situation at all.

In order to end homelessness, we must support and call for programs that both create housing and make people feel like they're part of the community. We must take a closer look at programs that offer citizens a universal basic income, comprehensive and accessible health care, and other social safety nets. We must check our own biases about homelessness.

And we must vote to usher in policies that make it easier for all people to have safe and affordable housing — so that in the future no one has to go viral in order to just survive.

More

Should paid parental leave be a baby shower gift? Lots of people think not.

On July 18, "Good Morning America" tweeted a link to a segment about a new "trendy baby shower gift."

Instead of more conventional gifts, the story explained, co-workers of new moms are donating their own paid vacation time so that their colleagues can have ample time off after giving birth.

"'It really, really meant a lot to me,'" GMA wrote in its tweet, quoting a new mom featured in the story who benefited from the trend. "I was extremely appreciative and very humbled.'"

Does this story just ... not sit well with you? You're definitely not alone.

People were alarmed that a "trend" like this could be framed in such a positive light in GMA's tweet.

The morning show was flooded with aggravated replies from readers — mostly women — disturbed by how the story reflects a sobering reality about how our society values parenthood.

"This is a horrifying story," the top comment in the tweet's replies read. "Co-workers making up for what employers aren't providing IS NOT A FEEL-GOOD STORY. Damn is the U.S. ever broken."

"One of my friends went back to work the week after having her baby," another reply read. "This shit is ridiculous."

[rebelmouse-image 19346571 dam="1" original_size="750x399" caption="Photo by Samantha Hurley/Burst." expand=1]Photo by Samantha Hurley/Burst.

To be fair, the morning show's on-air segment and online article did a much better job putting the "trend" into context and pointing to Washington's failures when it comes to parental leave policy. But the tweet's wording left many readers cringing at its sunny, lighthearted tone.

One of those readers was Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii.

He shared GMA's tweet with his followers, adding that ideally, big-hearted co-workers shouldn't have to provide this "generous baby shower gift" to their friends at work — the law would already guarantee it.

[rebelmouse-image 19346572 dam="1" original_size="633x225" caption="Image via ;Sen. Brian Schatz/Twitter." expand=1]Image via ;Sen. Brian Schatz/Twitter.

Schatz's take is hardly radical, of course. Research suggests that a wide majority of Americans, spanning all political leanings, agree that we need a federal paid parental leave policy.

It's absurd we don't have one already.

The U.S. remains the only industrialized nation without a federal policy mandating new parents get at least some paid time off.

Right now, the Family Medical Leave Act calls for businesses with 50 or more employees to allow parents 12 weeks time off without fear of losing their job. But there's a huge caveat: That time doesn't need to be paid.

While many white-collar workers enjoy paid parental leave benefits, many low-income parents — and, disproportionately, women of color — don't have such benefits through their jobs. They're the ones who are furthest left behind.

But as the Schatz noted to his Twitter followers, we can do something about it.

The good news is, the persistent calls for change have never been louder. A handful of states have passed promising paid-leave policies in recent years, and there's growing demand for the federal government to follow suit. Women are running for office in record numbers, too, giving hope that a potential gender shift in Washington could re-prioritize which issues get addressed in the years to come.

We need to vote to make it happen, though.

Head over to Ballotpedia to learn more about who's on the ballot in your own area ahead of the November midterms, and give your vote to a candidate who will make paid paternity leave a priority in office.

From Your Site Articles
Trending Stories