The Identity Crisis Under the Ink
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
Being inked comes with consequences. Trying to seek work in health or retail sales? ... want to enlist, re-inlist in US armed services? ~ http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/06/27/100-army-recru...
Not nearly as many as it used to. While there are definitely employers who discriminate against tattoos it's becoming much more likely that no one under the age of 50 is going to care or bat an eye unless an individual has tattoos above the neck, on the face, or all over the hands. I live and work in DC and see tattoos in all locations on all genders of all ages in business dress on my daily commute. It's an anecdote and not data, obviously, however I think that it's an accurate reflection of changing employer attitudes towards tattoos as a whole.
As for the article you linked, while it's true that the military does have strict tattoo standards you'd think that someone "who wanted to join since they were a child" would have thought about their potential eligibility to join before they got a tattoo. It smacks more of poor planning on the part of the person being tattooed rather than an overall indication that society just can't deal with tattoos.
I believe the rules changed recently, became stricter.
Note that when adjusted for population growth, that's only a ~12.7x increase rather than a 20x one.
> What’s more, 40 percent of the people in that group are Millennials, which some academics argue isn’t a coincidence.
Compared to the people who get tattoos today, the people who got tattoos 40 years ago are more likely to either have (A) had it removed or (B) died.
In other shocking news, 100% of the people who are 25 years old today were born in in the range 1989-1990... which some academics argue isn't a coincidence :P