‘Sweatpants for life!’ Wall Street Journal article urging freelancers to ‘upgrade’ from loungewear to $4k earrings and Prada handbags while working from HOME sparks fury on Twitter (19 Pics)

Twitter users have hit back at an article advising employees not to wear sweatpants while working from home. The  Wall Street Journal  p...

Twitter users have hit back at an article advising employees not to wear sweatpants while working from home.

The Wall Street Journal piece, published on Tuesday, advises readers to ditch loungewear in favour of 'dressy' clothes when working remotely, in order to 'stay focused and on task for the professional part'.

Entitled What to Wear to Work - When you Work from Home it recommends 'upgrading' to a $125 (£98) Cos sweater, $325 (£254) APC pants and $645 (£504) loafers from Tod's.

But readers were most offended by the suggestion of a $3,100 (£2,424) Prada purse.

Twitter users have reacted in fury from a WSJ article that recommends 'upgrading' to a $125 (£98) Cos sweater, $325 (£254) APC pants and $645 (£504) loafers from Tod's

'Don't judge me, you don't know my life!' Twitter user @attorneygsb was one of the thousands of people who responded to the WSJ article on what to wear while working from home

Social media user JC Gibbs was one of many employees who hit back at the WSJ article, published on Tuesday, on what to wear while working from home

Twitter user @HeatherWhaley also responded to the he WSJ article, published on Tuesday, on what to wear while working from home

Tyler King took to Twitter to post a meme, writing: 'I've been wearing the same pair of pajamas for three days. Space llamas with my Rogue Nasa t0shirt. Wither and behold, fashion facists'

Not impressed: Barrett Sallee posted a picture of Justin Timberlake rolling his eyes after reading the WSJ article, published on Tuesday, on what to wear while working from home

'Nobody asked you!' Twitter user Lauren McGregor entered the debate after the WSJ urged freelancers to ditch loungewear infavour of designer earrings, handbags and shirts

'Is it still 1957?' The WSJ has been accused of being outdated after it published the piece on what to wear while working from home, with many saying they were happy with their PJs

The story has racked up thousands of responses and memes from disgruntled employees, with some posting pictures of their own, decidedly casual, 'workwear'.

One wrote: 'Yes, make sure to carry a designer purse around when going to your kitchen to make lunch.'

Another sarcastic comment read: 'Agree, sweatpants way too formal... I'm working from home right now and wearing nothing except for a blanket and two-day stink.'

Parsifal Seere wrote: 'Well that's just common sense! If I'm not wearing a freshly-pressed three-piece suit, pocket watch, bow tie, pocket square, Arrow shirt, leather wingtips, Eau de Cologne, and my shinest monocle, then how can I even claim to be working??' 

The story has racked up thousands of responses and memes from disgruntled employees, with some posting pictures of their own, decidedly casual, 'workwear' (pictured: Twitter user Lukas Neville was wearing sweatpants while reading the WSJ story on his laptop)

 In response to the WSJ article on what to wear while working from home Twitter user Allie posted a snap of her PJs writing: 'Does the writer of this article resent the fact his employer doesn't let them work from home? These owl jammy pants are where it's at'

Backlash: Thousands of Twitter users have hit back at the WSJ article, which was published on Tuesday, advising employees not to wear sweatpants while working from home

The WSJ piece, by freelance journalist Christine Lennon, goes on to suggest a pair of $4,160 (£3,254) earrings and a $138 (£108) blouse.

She wrote: 'When I have a Skype interview, I reach for a pair of gold statement earrings, a Kosas lipstick and a fashion-y blouse from Isabel Marant or Dries Van Noten.' 

Responding to the article on Twitter, one worker declared: 'Sweatpants for life!' 

Another wrote: 'If you're working from home and put pants on before noon, you're doing it wrong.'