Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

davidoks.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 607 posts

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#141

Post by eloisant »

dylan604 wrote: post #12
ahartmetz wrote: post #7

I do not get what's special about banking apps as opposed to online banking. I've been doing online banking in the browser on a PC since before apps and I'm still doing it because dealing with data on a phone is painful compared to a PC. Is an app really that much easier to use?

Sounds like someone forgetting that for a large number of people, their mobile device is their only computer.

That wasn't true before smartphones, everyone had a computer so they could access the Internet. Except maybe in developing countries - but the article is about the US.

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#142

Post by ap99 »

aurareturn wrote: post #51
paxys wrote: post #35

One key line about ATMs is buried deep in the article: > the number of tellers per branch fell by more than a third between 1988 and 2004, but the number of urban bank branches (also encouraged by a wave of bank deregulation allowing more branches) rose by more than 40 percent So, ATMs did impact bank teller jobs by a significant amount. A third of them were made redundant. It's just that the decrease at individual b…

We're already seeing large software companies figure out that they don't need 5,000 developers. They probably only need 1,000 or maybe even fewer. However, the number of software companies being started is booming which should result in net neutral or net positive in software developer employment. Today: 100 software companies employ 1,000 developers each[0] Tomorrow: 10,000 software companies employ 10 developers ea…

And the differentiator will be (even more than it is now) product vision since AI-enhanced engineering abilities will be more level.

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#143

Post by kjkjadksj »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #103
alex_sf wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If goods aren't being sold, then the price will drop.

It's not that simple. If a poor person makes zero dollars how much of the reduced cost item could they now afford? We have a massively distorted economy driven by debt financialization and legalised banking cartels. It leads to weird inversions. For example as long as housing gets increasingly expensive at a predictable rate the housing becomes more affordable instead of less as banks are more able to lend money. The…

Fwiw in places like parts of the midwest housing is below cost of labor and materials. An existing house might be $70k and several bedrooms at that. You just can’t get anything built for that even if you build it all yourself.

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#144

Post by CamouflagedKiwi »

I hate the graph here. "Bank teller employment has fallen off a cliff" - well it _looks_ that way but actually it's more like halved from its peak because the bottom of the Y axis isn't zero. That's still a significant reduction, but it's not as dramatic as it seems at first glance.

Lies, damn lies...

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#145

Post by kjkjadksj »

ahartmetz wrote: post #7

I do not get what's special about banking apps as opposed to online banking. I've been doing online banking in the browser on a PC since before apps and I'm still doing it because dealing with data on a phone is painful compared to a PC. Is an app really that much easier to use?

My bank doesn’t allow for zelle access on PC. Otherwise I would never mobile bank.

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#146

Post by IgorPartola »

ap99 wrote: post #131
idiotsecant wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This and other fairytales. The only solution here is to stop tying people's value to their productivity. That makes a lot of sense in the 1900s but it makes a lot less sense when the primary faucet of productivity is automation. If you insist on tying a person's fundamental right to a decent and secure life to their productivity and then take away their ability to be productive you're left with a permenant and growin…

Speaking of fairytales, you're living in your own. Disconnecting value from productivity sounds good if you don't examine any of the consequences. Can you build a society from scratch using that principle? If you can't then why would it work on an already built society? Like if we're in an airplane flying, what you're saying is the equivalent getting rid of the wings because they're blocking your view. We're so high…

Imagine a society where one person produces all the value. Their job is to do highly technical maintenance on a single machine that is basically the Star Trek replicator: it produces all the food, clothing, housing, energy, etc. that is enough for every human in this society and the surplus is stored away in case the machine is down for maintenance, which happens occasionally. Maintaining the machine takes very specialized knowledge but adding more people to the process in no way makes it more productive. This person, let’s call them The Engineer, has several apprentices who can take over but again, no more than 5 because you just don’t need more.

In this society there is literally nothing for anyone else to do. Do you think they deserve to be cut out of sharing the value generated by The Engineer and the machine, leaving them to starve? Do you think starving people tend to obey rules or are desperate people likely to smash the evil machine and kill The Engineer if The Engineer cuts them off? Or do you think in a society where work hours mean nothing for an average person a different economic system is required?

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#147

Post by hackyhacky »

pixelatedindex wrote: post #138
hackyhacky wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We're already seeing large software companies figure out that they don't need 5,000 developers. They probably only need 1,000 or maybe even fewer. Long-term, they will need none. I believe that software will be made obsolete by AI. Why use AI to build software for automating specific tasks, when you can just have the AI automate those tasks directly? Why have AI build a Microsoft Excel clone, when you can just wave…

> Long-term, they will need none. I believe that software will be made obsolete by AI. I think this is a bit hyperbolic. Someone still needs to review and test the code, and if the code is for embedded systems I find it unlikely. For SaaS platforms you’ll see a dramatic reduction, maybe like 80% but it’ll still have a handful of devs. Factories didn’t completely eliminate assembly line workers, you just need a far fe…

> Someone still needs to review and test the code, and if the code is for embedded systems I find it unlikely.

I feel like you didn't understand my comment. I am predicting that there is no code to review. You simply ask the AI to do stuff and it does it.

Today, for example, you can ask ChatGPT to play chess with you, and it will. You don't need a "chess program," all the rules are built in to the LLM.

Same goes for SaaS. You don't need HR software; you just need an LLM that remembers who is working for the company. Like what a "secretary" used to be.

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#148

Post by Cpoll »

paxys wrote: post #35

One key line about ATMs is buried deep in the article: > the number of tellers per branch fell by more than a third between 1988 and 2004, but the number of urban bank branches (also encouraged by a wave of bank deregulation allowing more branches) rose by more than 40 percent So, ATMs did impact bank teller jobs by a significant amount. A third of them were made redundant. It's just that the decrease at individual b…

> A third of them were made redundant

If I'm reading this correctly, the interpretation should be that a third of them were transferred to new branches.

0.66 (two thirds retention) * 1.4 (40% more branches) = 0.84, so we only expect ~16% were made redundant.

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#149

Post by eloisant »

fabian2k wrote: post #59
bluedino wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your grandma doesn't give you a $10 check for your birthday in Europe? What about manufacturer rebates?

Europe is a big place, but my understanding is that the US is the outlier here and Europe is relatively similar in this regard. The only time I really saw checks used was when I was a child ~30-35 years ago and my parents used them. I did once cash a check from an elderly relative, but that was very unusual and only happened once. I didn't even know it was still possible to do that, my reaction was more like if someo…

I live in France and I still have to write a check here and there. Very minor, but still present.

Receiving a check however is even rarer.

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#150

Post by mikestew »

sublinear wrote: post #20
lsbehe wrote: post #4

Everyone I knew working as a bank teller quit because the actual job is screwing over old people with bad performing and long lasting investments. My bank calls me at least once a year to tell me my personal bank teller changed again.

Bad performing and long lasting you say?

If you are implying that the two are contradictory, allow me to introduce you to annuities.
Post reply on HN