I very much doubt that the second part of that would stand up to scrutiny. I am not saying that people with tattoos give better or worse service than others: I have no opinion on that. I am saying that your observation, if properly quantified, would almost certainly turn out to be wrong and that the service offered by those with tattoos would turn out, on the whole, to be neither better or worse.

We now have food geeks as well as science geeks, all with the moral philosophy of Asperger’s patients: so fixated on their mania for [tube amps/Pouilly-Fuissé/Ducati two stroke engines] that you’d be a fool not to hire them for your [high-end audio store/restaurant/Soho motorcycle salon]. Why be a well rounded adult when you can be an eternal [pre]adolescent and expert, and a happy cog and servant?

And the Captcha read “ikea”

If this is true, how come I always experience shitty service at Firestone?

Frankly, I think you’re ignoring the number of people who feel uncomfortable or even upset when served by a tattooed person. You may personally expect better service, but what about all those people who feel a little uneasy about that serviceperson? Like that person might be more likely to [insert bad thing here]?

I’m guessing you don’t feel that way, but are discounting the number of people who do. It’s like discounting racism in the customer population and then wondering if anti-black hiring discrimination will swing the other way over the course of a generation.

Anyhow, I’d like to hear clarification from you about why it’s rational to discount this consumer preference (which I’ll agree is bigoted and unfair to tattooed persons, but I won’t agree is nonexistent).

All this commentary sounds like a bad Seinfeld episode. What does that tell you about this blogger. Oooo, I should keep it down or he might come after me like I’m Ben Stein and gloat over my broken corpse after his final victory.

Also, try to post a picture that even remotely resembles your actual visage; saw you on BNN and did a long series of double-takes.

Sorry, but your ultra smugness gets tiring after a while. I’d rather you attack corruption in finance than blahblah about coffee-shops and your perception of their hiring practices.

But something like a face tattoo indicates that a person prioritizes membership in a subculture over easy employability. Sometimes this person is awesome at making lattes and you should seek them out. Sometimes they are mentally unstable and you should avoid them on a bad day.

What I can tell you is that employment at a service institution of any degree of quality is highly competitive, and if a person is chosen out of a pool of 10 or 20 applicants without having the correct “look” for a waiter/waitress, he or she is probably pretty good at the job. On the other hand, some attractive service people are TERRIBLE at their job and you will get tired of admiring the back of their head as you desperately try to flag them down for service.

I also sometimes operate on the related principle that unattractive restaurants with poor service that have remained in business in competitive/expensive neighborhoods probably have good food. It works pretty well with certain exceptions (e.g. college neighborhoods will sustain pizza places and Chinese restaurants that are substandard in both food, service, and decor).

and what about people with METAL all over their faces ??? so disgusting.

I’d challenge Assumption 1, with regard to visible tattoos. If only for the self-selection bias: People know that most white-collar professions frown on highly-visible tattoos. Thus, those who know they’re likely to enter said professions (and possessing any foresight), avoid them.

Tattoos don’t fit the typical “economics of discrimination” model, since you choose to get one (unlike your race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.). Not a random sample.