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

311–320 of 607 posts

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

#311

Post by skybrian »

kurthr wrote: post #305
mullingitover wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My prediction is no, because productivity gains must benefit the lower classes to see a multiplier in the economy. Baumol's cost disease hurts the lower classes by restricting their access to services like health care and education, and LLMs/agents make it possible to increase productivity in these areas in ways which were once unimaginable. The problem with services is that they're typically resistant to productiv…

You're implying that insurance companies will allow prices to fall and lower their profits. That seems like a really unlikely event in the current economy. They fire a lot of doctors and nurses, but they won't lower prices.

The ACA requires 80-85% of health insurance to go toward medical care (medical loss ratio). The way they work around that is to figure out how to charge more for medical care.

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

#312

Post by sssilver »

mullingitover wrote: post #211
bwestergard wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Baumol's cost disease hurts the lower classes by restricting their access to services like health care and education, and LLMs/agents make it possible to increase productivity in these areas in ways which were once unimaginable." You've expressed very clearly what LLMs would have to do in order to be economically transformative. "If you can get high quality medical advice for effectively nothing, if you can get high…

> Why should one child get an LLM teacher or doctor while others get individualized attention by a skilled human being? Is the value in the outcome of receiving medical advice and care, and becoming educated, or is the value just in the co-opting of another human being's attention? If the value is in the outcome, the means to achieving that aren't of much consequence.

The supply/demand picture here is more complicated than it looks.

If AI displaces human educators, yes, their supply shrinks -- but we can't assume what direction its demand will go.

We've seen this pattern before: as recorded music became free, live performance got more expensive, and therefore much less accessible than it used to be.

What's likely to happen is that "worse" (read: AI) education will become much cheaper, while "better" (read: in-person) education that involves human connection-driven benefits will become much less accessible compared to what it is today.

Most people may be consider it a win. It's certainly not a world I'm looking forward to.

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

#313

Post by ChocMontePy »

rayiner wrote: post #173
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…

Correct. The story isn’t correct even in the original formulation. US population increased by 50% from 1980 to 2010, and the economy became far more financialized. But the number of bank teller jobs barely grew during that period, even before the iPhone.

Yes, I was surprised that the ATM graphs weren't adjusted for population.

I used the Perspective tool in an image editor to give a rough idea of what the first graph would look like adjusted for population change:

https://i.imgur.com/jJlQcVh.png

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

#314

Post by awesome_dude »

roncesvalles wrote: post #291
awesome_dude wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the key "inefficiencies" of the private sector - there might be one winner at the end of the day providing the product that fills the market niche, but there was always multiple competitors giving it a go in the mean time. A recent example, Mitchell Hashimoto was pointing out that he wasn't "first to market" with his product(s), he was (at least) SEVENTH

Almost tautologically it's not "inefficient" to do so, because free market economics has decided that all the attempts are mathematically worth it, for a high-margin low-marginal-cost product like software.

I'm a little lost as to why seven teams duplicating effort is more "efficient" in any sense of the word than one or two teams working iteratively toward the same goal.

If this were seven government funded teams solving the same problem, people would lose their minds over the 'waste' But when private companies do it, we call it efficient market competition. The duplication is the same - we just frame it differently.

Edit: fixed some typos caused by fat fingers on a phone keyboard

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

#315

Post by thegrimmest »

dangus wrote: post #310
thegrimmest wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For something to be deserved, it must be earned. What do these people do to distinguish themselves from The Engineer’s pets? If they are wholly dependant on him for their subsistence, what distinguishes him from their god? To derive an alternate system you need alternate axioms. The axioms of our liberal society are moral equality and peaceful coexistence. Among such equals, no one person, group, or majority has the…

> For something to be deserved, it must be earned. Eeeeeerrrr , wrong! This is garbage hypercapitalist/libertarian ideology. Did you earn your public school education? Did you earn your use of the sidewalk or the public parks and playgrounds? Did you earn your library card? Did you earn your citizenship or right to vote? Did you earn the state benefits you get when you are born disabled? Did you earn your mother’s lo…

> This is garbage hypercapitalist/libertarian ideology.

Go on then, how do you decide what people deserve? How do you negotiate with others who disagree with you?

> examples above like public libraries

I agree! The nice part about all these mechanisms is that they’re voluntary.

If you’re suggesting that The Engineer’s actions should be constrained entirely by his own conscience and social pressure, then we agree. No laws or compulsion required.

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

#316

Post by dangus »

ahartmetz wrote: post #82
1123581321 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the apps perform better/faster and generally have more UI thought put into them. Overall, lower friction. Often when people need to use their banking app, they're in a hurry, maybe stressed (e.g. in line at a grocery store) so everything the bank can do quickly and with visual assurance helps. On the premium end of banking, where users generally aren't stressed about money, offering an app is more about catering…

A small screen and shitty keyboard are friction to me shrug

Something I have on me at all times

Versus

Drive to the bank, wait in line, talk to someone who misunderstands me, fill out a deposit/withdrawal slip, and also if it’s not 9AM - 5PM I just can’t do this at all.

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

#317

Post by idop »

stephbook wrote: post #267

I'm based in the rich Western world. Whenever I travel elsewhere, I'm amazed by the cheapness of labor. Humans would attend a gas station or fetch items in a store. Why? They're completely unneeded, I can do (and WANT to do) that myself. I always feel sad about these people, trapped in an economic system that forces them into useless labour when they could spend their time learning actually useful skills.

It's weird how you both describe visiting other cultures AND thinking everybody's just like you in the same paragraph.

1. You can fill your own car with gas, but some people can't, or prefer someone more knowledgeable to do it for them. Some people like the comfort of having someone bag their groceries for them, or have disabilities that necessitate it. Some people are old. Today you learned.

2. Your economic system is not different than theirs. Everybody NEEDS a job to support themselves, their families and to be functioning members of society. That means jobs that can easily be automated won't be automated. Also, you may make a lot more money than that kid bagging groceries to make a few bucks for himself, but at least what he does actually helps someone. What we here on Hacker News do is mostly build imaginary products that will be gone and forgotten quicker than you can say "Al Bundy".

3. Not only that, all of us here have basically written our own replacements and made ourselves obsolete. Something tells me your job isn't really needed too.

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

#318

Post by elAhmo »

stephbook wrote: post #267

I'm based in the rich Western world. Whenever I travel elsewhere, I'm amazed by the cheapness of labor. Humans would attend a gas station or fetch items in a store. Why? They're completely unneeded, I can do (and WANT to do) that myself. I always feel sad about these people, trapped in an economic system that forces them into useless labour when they could spend their time learning actually useful skills.

I am sure in the rich Western world you also have people who work at a gas station, who fetch items from a store.

Helping someone fill their car with gas or sell them an item is useful as well, not everyone should be a software developer. Before feeling sad for other people, think about yourself as well.

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

#319

Post by dangus »

thegrimmest wrote: post #315
dangus wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For something to be deserved, it must be earned. Eeeeeerrrr , wrong! This is garbage hypercapitalist/libertarian ideology. Did you earn your public school education? Did you earn your use of the sidewalk or the public parks and playgrounds? Did you earn your library card? Did you earn your citizenship or right to vote? Did you earn the state benefits you get when you are born disabled? Did you earn your mother’s lo…

> This is garbage hypercapitalist/libertarian ideology. Go on then, how do you decide what people deserve? How do you negotiate with others who disagree with you? > examples above like public libraries I agree! The nice part about all these mechanisms is that they’re voluntary. If you’re suggesting that The Engineer’s actions should be constrained entirely by his own conscience and social pressure, then we agree. No…

We decide via a hopefully elected government.

These examples aren’t generally voluntary once implemented. I can’t get a refund from my public library or parks department if I decide not to use it.

The social pressure placed on The Engineer is the manifestation of law. That’s all law is: a set of agreed-upon social contracts, enforced by various means.

Obviously, many dictators and governments get away with badly mistreating their subjects, and that’s unfortunate, shouldn’t happen, and shouldn’t be praised as a good system.

I think you may be splitting hairs a little bit here and trying really hard to manufacture…something.

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

#320

Post by mcmcmc »

drnick1 wrote: post #304
mcmcmc wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sick of this idea that “free” services are beneficial to society. There is no such thing as a free lunch; users are essentially bartering their time, attention, IP (contributed content) and personal/behavioral data in exchange for access to the service. By selling those services at a cost of “free”, hyperscalers eliminate competition by forcing market entrants to compete against a unit price of 0. They have to ha…

> I’m sick of this idea that “free” services are beneficial to society. There is no such thing as a free lunch; users are essentially bartering their time, attention, IP (contributed content) and personal/behavioral data in exchange for access to the service. In aggregate, this is true, but there are many ways to game the system to one's advantage and get a true "free lunch." For example, people watching Youtube with…

No, you are misunderstanding th economic principle. There is still a cost associated with serving that user, and the user is still paying for the cost of their internet connection and the opportunity cost of spending time on the service, or of setting up new accounts to get past usage limits. “No useful telemetry” I don’t really agree with in the YouTube example, as view counts are still vital for their recommendation algorithm.

TINSTAFL has two main implications. First that nothing is free, someone has to pay for it. Second is that money is not the only thing you pay with; every choice has an opportunity cost. Gaming the system costs someone something.

Post reply on HN