Farming has always been seasonal and before gasoline engines drastically changed their efficiency they often involved horses and oxen. There was a larger number of people living rurally but most of them weren't spending the majority of their year actually working on any farm.

The other nitpick of the post is, yes, of course, people in work clothes of any generation do not look particularly elegant. People didn't wear their work clothes all day and would have had nicer sets for special functions like church or weddings.

▲

pixl97 9 hours ago | parent [-]

>would have had nicer sets for special functions like church or weddings.

It's likely they would have one set of church clothes at least, but if you ever look at 'old' houses, closets are tiny because even modestly wealthy people didn't have that many clothes.

In 1900 you've have spend something like 15% of your yearly income on clothes, now it's around 3%.

▲

themafia 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Did the clothes in 1900 last longer than they do today? Did they even have polyester?

	▲	AlotOfReading 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Clothes lasted longer, yes. The fabric was almost always thicker and less finely woven due to the limitations of historical textile manufacturing. The garments themselves were properly stitched instead of overlocked, with patterns sensibly designed for the usage and size of the garments. People also repaired their clothes and would keep them long past the point most modern consumers would buy new. Plus, clothes were a considerable portion of the household budget. People couldn't afford them if they didn't last.