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

461–470 of 607 posts

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

#461

Post by rgblambda »

bloomingeek wrote: post #296
havaloc wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My boomer dad does more things on his phone than I do and I'm Gen X. It's actually astonishing how much he does on his iPhone. I'm dragging out the laptop and he's on his iPhone happy as a clam.

I'm a tech loving boomer, I always use my PC for banking, ordering, etc. My wife, however, almost always uses her cell, which is great for when we are traveling. Even though we're only five years apart in age, she's lite years ahead of me with a cell. I freely admit part of my reluctance for using my cell is the mobile tracking ability of companies.

I'm not sure I'm following, unless you're saying you don't carry your phone around with you? Your bank and Amazon/ebay already know your address.

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

#462

Post by eru »

whatisthiseven wrote: post #186
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…

> But will it? My prediction is no, because productivity gains must benefit the lower classes to see a multiplier in the economy. For example, ATMs being automated did cause a negative drop in teller jobs, but fast money any time does increase the velocity of money in the economy. It decreases savings rate and encourages spending among the class of people whose money imparts the highest multiplier. AI does not. All t…

> My prediction is no, because productivity gains must benefit the lower classes to see a multiplier in the economy.

> It decreases savings rate and encourages spending among the class of people whose money imparts the highest multiplier.

Huh, what? What kind of multiplier stuff are you talking about here?

The central bank looks at the overall spending in the economy (well, including forecasts), and compares that with its targets. They adjust their policy stance accordingly to try and hit their targets.

If people become more or less likely to spend their money ('multipliers') the central bank can and will adjust the amount of money available.

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

#463

Post by pepperoni_pizza »

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?

I do online banking on my phone. There's two reasons for it:

1) Because of regulations, I need to use my phone to log in into internet banking and to confirm every transaction (including online card payments) anyway. If I already have to find a phone, I might just use it all the way.

2) Invoices have QR codes on them nowadays, that you can scan with your phone and it will prefill all the account numbers, amounts, etc. That's easier than copy-pasting or rewriting it.

Now this is all actually terrible, because to live in a society, you need a bank account, and to have a bank account, you need Google or Apple-controlled smartphone. (there are some legacy banks that allow you to use SMS for second factor, but it's less and less common)

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

#464

Post by lesam »

ardeaver wrote: post #455
lchengify wrote: post #196

Two anecdotes I'll share: First: Most people believe it was Netflix that killed Blockbuster, but that's not strictly correct. It was the combination of Netflix and Redbox that really sealed the deal for Blockbuster (and video rental generally). It normally takes not one, but at least two things to really fill the full functionality of a old paradigm. Also it's human nature to focus heavily on one thing (Blockbuster w…

The thing that actually killed Blockbuster was Carl Icahn. He bought up a bunch of shares and wanted to quickly turn a profit on the company. At the time, they were investing heavily into a Netflix-like service, which required a significant up front capital investment and, therefore, was losing money. Icahn, wanting to make a profit, decided to cut spending and basically not look forward at all. He got a quick, massi…

This is interesting, but doesn't have to be correct.

If Blockbuster had kept pouring money into the new service, maybe it would have lost it all - I see no reason to think Blockbuster's movie rental franchise business would have 'transferrable skills' to allow it to succeed at streaming.

If it had been trying to pivot into a pizza delivery business (perhaps more transferable, in terms of locating franchises etc) would Icahn still have been 'killing' it?

My point is, maybe it was already dead and Icahn just prevented it from wasting a lot of money on the way down the drain.

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

#465

Post by kavalg »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #384
ssl-3 wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy for anyone to go get a different job as long as the supply of jobs is infinite. But it is not infinite; eventually, we reach a point where we no longer need additional ditch diggers.

Job supply trends towards zero. The ultimate logical conclusion of this train of thought is there is no point in keeping the lower classes alive. Why do we need 15 billion humans if they do nothing but burden you with their maintenance costs? Let them die so that the quadrillionaires can enjoy the Earth with their perfect AI workforces catering to their every need. The future is bleak. If this is the sort of dystopia…

In Azimov's Robot series the society that chose to live with robots gradually destructed itself by just living longer and not having so many children. The other part of humanity that avoided robots flourished (not without suffering). But that all required new planets for settlement (I am looking at you Elon).

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

#466

Post by AdamN »

danielbln wrote: post #55
dehrmann wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this is true, but for serious tasks, I need the screen real estate. I'm amazed at what some people can do from a phone, but also wonder if they're missing things, of if it's actually inefficient.

I'm going to bet that you are a millennial or older? We need our big screens for $IMPORTANT work (buying big things, money stuff, etc.). GenZ tends to be less bothered by it and just does it all on the tiny screen in their pocket. It's time to schedule a colonoscopy.

I'd also venture to say that most phones and bank apps are more secure than laptops and websites. Phones are much more locked down by the vendors.

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

#467

Post by bogtog »

lchengify wrote: post #196

Two anecdotes I'll share: First: Most people believe it was Netflix that killed Blockbuster, but that's not strictly correct. It was the combination of Netflix and Redbox that really sealed the deal for Blockbuster (and video rental generally). It normally takes not one, but at least two things to really fill the full functionality of a old paradigm. Also it's human nature to focus heavily on one thing (Blockbuster w…

> Not listed here is how banks themselves have changed to be almost entirely online

Sorry what? Was this not the central theme of the article? (albeit with a title that used the word "iPhone" to be catchier)

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

#468

Post by iainmck29 »

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…

to be honest, too hard to predict but I think it will. We just can't predict how it will change. I'm optimistic it will open people up to more creative work rather than drudgery. Alternatively maybe people move to more physical presence required style work which is probably more rewarding for many anyway.

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

#469

Post by duskdozer »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #258
bwestergard wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The premise of your argument is that "the outcome" can be separated from the process. This is true enough for manufacturing bricks: I don't much care what processes was used to create a brick if it has certain a compressive strength, mass, etc. But Baumol's argument, which you introduced to the conversation, is that outcome and process cannot actually be distinguished, even if a distinction in thought is possible amo…

It's very true for healthcare (especially mental healthcare) and education today as well, because for most people, the choice isn't LLM vs. human attention - it's LLM vs. no access at all .

It's not like that's an inherently unsolvable problem without using LLMs

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

#470

Post by bloomingeek »

rgblambda wrote: post #461
bloomingeek wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a tech loving boomer, I always use my PC for banking, ordering, etc. My wife, however, almost always uses her cell, which is great for when we are traveling. Even though we're only five years apart in age, she's lite years ahead of me with a cell. I freely admit part of my reluctance for using my cell is the mobile tracking ability of companies.

I'm not sure I'm following, unless you're saying you don't carry your phone around with you? Your bank and Amazon/ebay already know your address.

Sorry, I should have noted. I haven't installed any apps from banks, FB, Amazon, ebay, credit card companies, reward programs or anything like that on my cell. Sure, there are apps in my cell that I basically can't uninstall that track. Just not one's I've installed myself.
Post reply on HN