Relative practicality

when you are not bound by the practical considerations of manual labor and movement, things get weird pretty fast.

I find that in history the choices of the wealthy or powerful pretty much revolve around “what is impossible for the poor” to do. For example, in many times and cultures, being overweight was/is a sign of wealth and status because you can afford to eat well. In today’s western world, cheap unhealthy food is so readily available that many poor people are actually overweight. It actually takes more time and effort to avoid poor eating habits and physical lethargy. Working Joe may not have time to go to the gym. The amount of sun tan one has is a similar situation, where in ancient days you were wealthy if you could afford to sit inside and have your peons farm for you (or whatever) in order to flaunt your paleness. Today since so many work indoors at office jobs or what have you, it almost is the opposite situation where you are only tan if you specifically have the time to go outside. Of course these are generalizations, but I think there is still truth to them. In my experience it is consistent with human nature.

And as most people do not prefer hard manual labor, those undesirable jobs are often the jobs that the undesirables get. The point being, the wealthy are not subject to as many limitations as the poor. Since human nature says that the grass is always greener and that value is determined by circumstance, sometimes the only factor in what the wealthy do is what the poor cannot.

point in case: you would not want to wear any of these if you are feeding the pigs or have to chop a tree. Even apart from the expense of their materials, the sheer range of movement that is limited would be a deal breaker if your priority is to do your job. still fun to draw nonetheless.

but, since the grass is still always greener, the poor often try to emulate what the wealthy do, causing a silly cycle. People are people wherever you go.