I have a hand tattoo, plus 1full sleeve, one nearly full, 3/4 coverage (roughly) on both legs, and a back piece planned. Before I get a tattoo, I research who does the style I want or whose work I love. I am prepared to travel to get the expertise and artistic talent. I am also prepared to pay for it. So far, I have travelled to various countries and been tattooed by many artists, each love to add to my collection as they respect the other artists.
I have seen young people at work who obviously just go to their mate or their local studio and the standard of work is sadly very low. That is what would make me judge them in a job interview. Not only have they not considered the implications that a visible tattoo can have, but they have gone for something quick and cheap that will look shit in a few years.
Providing you do the research, are willing to travel and pay, then there is no reason a hand tattoo would look tacky. However, like other posters have said, decent tattoo artists often won't do a 'job stopper' unless you have a good level of coverage already.
FWIW, A) the kinds of tattoos that go blue, or blurry after a few years tend to be done with cheap ink and bad technique. Good tattoos look as crisp ten years later as the day they were done. B) I'm a privately educated middle-class intelligent woman with a good job earning above the national average. Not that this stuff matters to me, but some posters seem to act like tattoos are for the uneducated common 'under-class' 🙄