Comments on: The economics of tattoos A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: tatgirl2486 Mon, 17 May 2010 17:45:51 +0000 while i believe that not all people with visible tattoos are the best choice for any particular job, i still feel that they should have the same chances as anyone else with or without visible tattoos! i have been at the receiving end of this discrimination, i was “hired” at olive garden immediately after my interview, but when i shook the managers hand after he told me i had the job, he saw my tattoos on my wrists and told me if i could cover them with make up then my job was secure. needless to say i went out and bought special (100 dollar) makeup to cover these tattoos. and when i went back to show him they were covered, he told me i couldnt have the job anymore. i understand that some companies have tattoo policies, but they shouldnt give someone a job, tell them what to do to keep it, then take it away. this is why i think everyone should be given the same opportunities when it comes to being hired at a job, because i clearly was what they wanted, but because i have ink it was all taken back. STOP DISCRIMINATING AGAINST PEOPLE WITH TATTOOS! ty :)

By: skeptic Thu, 27 Aug 2009 23:05:00 +0000 Re: “I tend to both expect and receive much better service from people with visible tattoos.”

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.

By: seth edenbaum Sun, 23 Aug 2009 00:30:59 +0000 Make it idiot-proof:
It’s called post-humanism, or pre-humanism redux. It’s the boy at Starbucks with a coffee bean tattooed on his forearm; he’s a member of the “Barista tribe.” 
 It’s the public proclamation of loyalty to a subculture; documenting the need to belong; atomization and the rise of pathologically over-determined imagined communities etc.
etc. etc. It’s the sociality of baroque individualism.

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”

By: Shnaps Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:04:01 +0000 Businesses with tattooed employees are signalling to me that they have better service, and as a result I’m more likely to try them out.

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

By: Joe S. Fri, 21 Aug 2009 02:39:43 +0000 I think that there might be a bit too much aggregation here. Tattoos say a lot, but it matters which tattoo. Celtic curlicue: trustafarian or wannabe. Ballpoint work: prison. Other commenters have already mentioned hidden v overt. Barber pole stripes on penis? Uh, maybe I went too far.

By: dds Thu, 20 Aug 2009 22:23:11 +0000 I don’t understand this post any more than I would understand the assertion that you both expect to receive and do in fact receive better service from black people, so therefore you are wondering whether the hiring discrimination against blacks will eventually swing the opposite direction or achieve a happy medium.

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).

By: drewbie Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:10:09 +0000 I follow the logic, but I think it ignores one thing: some buisnesses may be more inclined to hire tattooed workers than others. For instance, a shop like Hot Topic or Spencers would value the image an employee with wican tats on his wrists provides, while a shop like Hallmark or Abercrombie would likely be hurt by it.

By: Gorgasal Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:56:23 +0000 A little light-heartedness… “What your tattoo locations say about you” (contains potentially offensive words): our-tattoo-locations-say-about-you.htm

By: Antagonist Thu, 20 Aug 2009 01:02:40 +0000 New York fukn City!

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.

By: cgaros Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:27:15 +0000 People from a certain moderately-liberal suburban background (visible in many of the comments) often assume that everyone with a tattoo is subhuman. The reality is that a high percentage of people in socioeconomic positions/professions that don’t actively discourage all tattoos have at least a subtle, concealable tattoo. If you talk to waiters even in fine restaurants (i.e. people making more than the average public school teacher), you find lots on the upper arm or leg. Ditto for nurses. These people have tattoos to express individuality and have something to show off, but they’re strategically placed to not show at work.

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).