ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did (davidoks.blog)

> 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 the spending on AI goes to a very small minority, who have a high savings rate. Junior employees that would have productively joined the labor force at good wages, must now compete to join the labor force at lower wages, depressing their purchasing power and reducing the flow of money.

Look at all the most used things for AI: cutting out menial decisions such as customer service. There are no "productivity" gains for the economy here. Each person in the US hired to do that job would spend their entire paycheck. Now instead, that money goes to a mega-corp and the savings is passed on to execs. The price of the service provided is not dropping (yet). Thus, no technology savings is occurring, either.

In my mind, the outcomes are:

* Lower quality services

* Higher savings rate

* K-shaped economy catering to the high earners

* Sticky prices

* Concentration of compute in AI companies

* Increased price of compute prevents new entrants from utilizing AI without paying rent-seekers, the AI companies

* Cycle continues all previous steps

We may reach a point where the only ones able to afford compute are AI companies and those that can pay AI companies. Where is the innovation then? It is a unique failure outcome I have yet to see anyone talk about, even though the supply and demand issues are present right now.

IIRC, the way this worked was that by decreasing tellers required per branch, it made a lot more marginal locations pencil out for branches, at a time when the banking industry was expansionary.

This is not so helpful if AI is boosting productivity while a sector is slowing down, because companies will cut in an overabundant market where deflationary pressure exists.

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 each[1]

The net is the same.

[0]https://x.com/jack/status/2027129697092731343

[1]https://www.linkedin.com/news/story/entrepreneurial-spirit-s...

> 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.

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.

I go back and forth on this. I relate it to software. I don't think AI can meaningfully write software autonomously. There are people who oversee it and prompt it and even then it might write things badly. So there needs to be a person in the loop. But that person should probably have very deep knowledge of the software especially for say low level coding. But then that person probably developed the knowledge by coding things by hand for a long time. Coding things by hand is part of getting the knowledge. But people especially students rely heavily on AI to write code so I assume their knowledge growth is stunted. I don't know mathematical proofs will help here. The specs have to come from somewhere.

I can see AI making things more productive but it requires humans to be very expert and do more work. That might mean fewer developers but they are all more skilled. It will take a while for people to level up so to speak. It's hard to predict but I think there could be a rough transition period because people haven't caught on that they can't rely on AI so either they will have to get a new career or ironically study harder.

It costs a lot of money to train one person to learn stuff.

We are already now in the time were training one LLM seems to be more cost effective to train for everything than training a million people the same thing over and over (after all, people loose knowledge when they get replaced).

LLM don't even need to become AGI to continue this trend. They just need to be good enough 'executors' of these tasks we expected people to do.

Which also means that every new job, which needs any form of training, will not be created because we will train ONE llm (or three, doesn't matter) to do it right and again you optimized the new people away.

> So, ATMs did impact bank teller jobs by a significant amount.

Did it? This sounds like describing a company opening a new campus as laying off a third of their employees, partly offset by most of them still having the same job in the same company but at a new desk.

It’s not just the economy, the US population increased 20% over that period while the number of tellers dropped by around 16%.

Net result ATM’s likely cost ~30-40% of bank teller jobs.

Population is really important to adjust for in employment statistics. Compare farmers in the USA in 2025 vs 1800, and yes the absolute number is up but the percentage is way down.

No, I think it's likely that this is the first major productivity boom that won't be followed with a consumption boom, quite the opposite. It'll result in a far greater income inequality. Things will be cheaper but the poor will have fewer ways to make money to afford even the cheaper goods.

A lot probably depends on who can do the new jobs.

In many past cases where new technology eliminated jobs it was accompanied by new jobs related to the new technology that the people whose jobs were eliminated could do, or could reasonably learn to do, and with good enough pay to maintain their standard of living.

Lose your job working in a horse drawn wagon factory because companies are switching to motorized trucks for deliveries? Those trucks are way more complicated to build than wagons so there should be plenty of new jobs in the truck factories.

With AI it seems much less likely for that to generate new jobs for people replaced by AI in as direct a way as trucks did for wagon makers.

I also notice that in the very first graph bank teller jobs were growing rapidly until ATMs started to be deployed, and then switched to growing very slowly. That sure suggests to me that if ATMs didn't exist bank teller growth would have continued at a faster pace than it actually did.

note that the teller's job duties shifted as well.

with ATMs, they wouldn't hand count money for withdrawals and deposits as much. they'd be doing more interesting and challenging things.

same thing will happen with AI automation -- the easy parts disappear, and youre left with undiluted 'hard parts' in your job. some people might like the change, but we'll probably learn that you need a good mix of deep/hard problems and light/breezy problems to keep mentally engaged and prevent burnout.

Depends. The only predictions I have seen here are the centaurs vs anti centaurs of Doctorow, and even his analysis I find pretty flimsy.

I dont think the race to shove an LLM into everything is going to grow the pie.

But I also dont think it is impossible that a use case will present itself that will create further jobs.

The issue is that its largely unpredictable.

Its a bit like, we are sitting around in the 1950s trying to predict how computers will affect the economy.

It is going to take more than 1 successful deductive leap to get us from 1950s computing -> miniaturisation -> computer in every home -> internet communications.

Every deductive leap we take is extremely prone to being wrong.

We simply cannot lie back and imagine every productive relationship in the economy and then extrapolate every centaur and anti centaur possible for it.

What we do know is that theres a bit of a gold rush to effectively brute force every possible AI variant into every productive relationship in the economy. The fastest way to get the answer to your question is to do it. Possibly the only way to get the answer is to do it.

For instance, someone might imagine LLMs simply eating a whole bunch of service industry jobs. At the same time, theres a mid state where it eats some, but the remaining staff are employed to monitor the LLMs to prevent them handing out free shit to smart shoppers. Its also easy enough to imagine that LLMs never quite get there and the risk is too large for foul play, so they just dont gain that kind of traction. Its also possible to imagine an end state where LLMs can get to 0% risk if they are constantly trained on human data coming from humans doing the same job, and that humans are gainfully employed in parallel with LLMs. Its possible that LLMs are great at business as usual, but the risk emerges when company policies change, and the cost of retraining LLMs makes it impractical for move fast and break things companies to do anything but hire humans. My favourite scenario is one where humans are largely AI assisted, trained on particular people, and theres a massive cybercrime industry built around exfiltrating LLM training weights trained on high functioning humans and deploying them without humans to the third world to help them get 80% of the quality of first world businesses, making them heavily competitive.

We dont know what we dont know.

I don't understand the economics behind bank branches. Some of the best real estate by me is taken up by giant bank branches that are always mostly empty with a few bored employees inside. And they open new ones all the time. So it's not like they're stuck in some lease.

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.

> But will it?

No, because if you think about Startrek the endgame is replicators. Well the concept that 100% of basic needs are met.

At some point work becomes unnecessary for a society to function.

> A third of them were made redundant.

More like something closer to 100%. The ATM was notable for enabling a complete change in mission. The historical job of teller largely disappeared, but a brand new job never done before was created in its wake. That is why there was little change in the number of people employed.

> because of deregulation and a booming economy and whatever else.

The deregulation largely happened in the 1970s, while you're talking about 1988 onward. The reality is that ATM actually was the primary catalyst for the specific branch expansion you are talking about. Like above, the ATM made the job of teller redundant, but it introduced a brand new job. A job that was most effective when the workers were closer to the customer, hence why workers were relocated.

I don't think it will, but I also think it's not all doom and gloom.

I think it would be a mistake to look at this solely through the lens of history. Yes, the historical record is unbroken, but if you compare the broad characteristics of the new jobs created to the old jobs displaced by technology, they are the same every time: they required higher-level (a) cognitive (b) technical or (c) social skills.

That's it. There is no other dimension to upskill along.

And LLMs are good at all three, probably better than most people already by many metrics. (Yes even social; their infinite patience is the ultimate advantage. Prompt injection is an unsolved hurdle though, so some relief there.)

Plus AI is improving extremely rapidly. Which means it is probably advancing faster than most people can upskill.

An increasingly accepted premise is that AI can displace junior employees but will need senior employees to steer it. Consider the ratio of junior to senior employees, and how long it takes for the former to grow into the latter. That is the volume of displacement and timeframe we're looking at.

Never in history have we had a technology that was so versatile and rapidly advancing that it could displace a large portion of existing jobs, as well as many new jobs that would be created.

However, what few people are talking about is the disintermediating effect of AI on the power of capital. If individuals can now do the work of entire teams, companies don't need many of them. But by the same token(s) (heheh) individuals don't need money, and hence companies, to start something and keep it going either! I think that gives the bottom side of the K-shaped economy a fighting chance to equalize.

> So, ATMs did impact bank teller jobs by a significant amount. A third of them were made redundant.

That's not quite my read - the original says per branch there was a 1/3 reduction, but your comment appears to say 1/3 total redundancy.

There was, according to the original, a 40% increase in number of branches, meaning a net increase in tellers (my math might be off though)

edit:

100 branches → 140 branches = +40%

100 tellers/branch → 67 tellers/branch = -33%

140 × 67 = 9,380

100 × 100 = 10,000

net difference -620 or just over 6% (loss)

> 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 bank branches was offset by the increase in the total number of branches, because of deregulation and a booming economy and whatever else.

There's an important point here that you're glossing over. The increase in the total number of branches doesn't have to be unrelated to the decrease in the number of tellers each branch requires to operate. The sharp drop in the cost of operating one branch directly means that you can have more branches. This means it isn't true that "a third of bank tellers were made redundant" - some of them were reallocated from existing branches to new ones.

And then came 2008, so that boom was built on fraud.

we're going to find out

[flagged]

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, massive bump in stock price and jumped ship as it was crashing into the iceberg. Blockbuster was caught in the middle of a paradigm shift and found itself massively under prepared to deal with it.

I have a hard time believing that Redbox had much of an impact on Blockbuster, and they certainly weren't changing the video rental paradigm.

Netflix's original DVD-rental by mail business no doubt ate into Blockbuster's business to some degree, and with their huge inventory was more of a head-on competitor than Redbox which could only offer a vending-machine full of options - the most popular ones.

What really killed Blockbuster was streaming video, not just a way of "automating" the DVD rental business - it was the paradigm shift, similar to the mobile banking vs ATM shift that TFA describes.

American Express savings has no physical branches. Heck its not unique to them, there's other banks with no physical branches.

> 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)

>most people belive

Instead of chastising people with another guess you could find the source. The founders of blockbuster knew it would eventually fail. Short version, they knew once people watched the huge initial backlog revenues would plummet. The plan was to build everywhere and capture that initial high income. Afterwords, well whatever.

Built to Fail: The Inside Story of Blockbuster's Inevitable Bust

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

My main reason to go to bank after online was to deal with physical things. Mainly checks and specifically depositing them. Now, I can usually do that with my phone because of the camera. Even if I had a webcam before, I don’t recall the functionality being there. They had check scanners but usually for businesses and my check volume is really low so never made sense to get one (usually came with a monthly fee to have one iirc)

Even now, the mobile deposit limit seems sufficiently low that I still go to the bank with more frequency than I’d like. Luckily, the ATM at the bank has a check scanner now that doesn’t have a limit so that’s usually easier and faster. It’s the daily $5000 limit I hit the most, a single check and put me over it and require a trip to bank. I think the monthly limit is $30000 and that doesn’t get in my way often. I think $5000 is too low of a daily limit. It’s common enough that I have to make a $5k+ settlement with friends/family that usually always has to be done by check. (For curious, This is usually travel that I pay for and we settle up later.)

Less common, but sometimes I need to get a bank check (guaranteed funds) or a money order. Way less frequent is need to get/give cash funds. Usually can use ATM for this unless it’s a larger withdrawal or if I need some particular denomination. This whole paragraph accounts for about 1-4 annual trips in any given year though.

My bank decided that the online banking website needed to be more like the app, so now they are both terrible. Basically the entire site is white space on the computer, because everything is centred and dumb down. Input fields for numbers are invisible, they are just a label saying "Kr" and you're suppose to click it and the numerical keyboard on the phone pops up, except it obviously doesn't on the computer.

Paying billed is easier on the phone in the sense that bills in Denmark have a three part number, e.g. +71 1234567890 1234678 where the first is a type number, second is the receiver and the last is a customer number with the receiver. The phone allows to just use the camera to scan the number.

Transferring money is terrible on both platforms, because it's designed to be doable on the phone, meaning having three or four screen, but it gives you no overview. There's plenty of space on a computer for a proper overview giving you the feeling of safety, but it's not used. Same for account overview. Designed to the phone, but doesn't adapt to the bigger screen and provide you with more details, so you need to click every single expense to see what is is exactly.

Yes...because banks have made it much more difficult to do online banking through a web browser as a forcing function to route people to their apps.

I actually switched to a credit union last year from Chase partly for this reason. Chase used to have m.chase.com, which was PERFECT for most of the banking I did while being extremely fast, even back in the 2G days. They Web 2.0'ed it in 2017 and deprecated m.chase.com in 2018 or so.

The provider that maintains my bank's online banking platform made it fast and lightweight, much like m.chase.com of yesteryear, while also adding more modern authentication security (2FA vs SMS).

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)

One bank I work with seems to have all but given up on online banking and I just have to use their app because online banking will no longer work on Linux (although they don't openly admit it).

I think Android and iOS are safer platforms than PCs and that's why banks want you to use your phone.

I think mobile deposit by scanning a check with your smartphone camera is one piece of it?

I've never seen a bank offer that feature via their website.

Official banking apps are harder to phish than websites. They also tend to keep you signed in for longer, especially once you enable something like FaceID.

You can deposit checks via the app pretty easily.

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 to however the user prefers to interact.

Cofounder at Envelope here. Yes, a well polished banking app is much easier to use for many tasks

- Push notifications within seconds of swiping your card - Frictionless to check your balance/budget/cards with bio auth - Mobile check deposit (as others here have stated) - Instantly locking/unlocking your cards - Budgeting built-in

If, to you, "doing online banking" means "sitting down at my computer and scrolling through the PDF statements on Chase's website" (I don't blame you, I've been there), then yes, doing that on a desktop is much easier. I'd encourage you to take a look at how far banking apps have come recently.

For inexplicable reasons I have found that some operations are only possible through the app. Ok they are not inexplicable, there is the illusion that the App is more secure and thus some high impact stuff is only possible through the app. At least in my bank.

> I do not get what's special about banking apps as opposed to online banking.

I use both. In the beginning I used to prefer the web version. I can use my large monitor to see more data and use a full keyboard and mouse. But I have started to use the mobile version more. For Wells Fargo at least, the mobile version is faster to log into because of face ID support. The website requires a lot more clicks and keystrokes. Also, the mobile app makes it easy and possible to deposit checks if and when I get them.

No, the article is wrong about the iPhone.

It's the Internet that killed bank tellers.

How do you scan a check on your PC?

Generally yes the apps tend to be easier to use for most things, especially with a high-speed internet connection. Customers prefer them, banks build them since customers prefer them.

I can do all the same things with my bank with a browser that I can via the app.

It seems like a natural evolution of the technology and adoption rates to me. There was rudimentary online banking in the 2000s, then we saw banks shift to fully online presences in the 2010s. Maybe it wasn’t “the iphone” but just the fact that by the 2010s, everybody had a device in their pocket.

Yeah, I have been doing online banking since around 1998.

I have refused to install the bank app on my phone because I see no point in it and just downsides in case I get mugged (bad experience in my teenage years)

The 1 check I get a year takes about a minute to deposit at the ATM on my way to work.

I've had the same thought. The only major difference that I can think of is the built-in camera making check deposits easier. It may also be that people were just generally using computers more and using the internet more over this same time period, although a lot is that because of smartphones

How do you deposit a check on a PC? I know on a computer you can just take photos of the front and back, and deposit it.

Mostly easier in the sense that it is always in your hand already, not at home on the charger on your desk.

Ever deposit a check via PC browser?

An app on your phone can be more secure as you are using the device itself as a hardware token.

Honestly, its overkill. When my MaBook went kaput, i had to start doing everything on my iPhone. Had to get a good mobile documents office suite (Collabora is great ), do all my banking with both mobile apps or desktop browser apps, etc. Its been dfine, i doubt i would use a full size computer for that anymore.

Most of the difference is intentional enshittification of the non-app UX because it pushes users onto a platform where they have less control over their device and thus less ability to avoid malware like ads and tracking.

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

I mean, this argument isn’t really specific to banking apps. This could apply to any native vs. web app, in general.

Native apps can provide a bit more streamlined UX (e.g. Face ID), while also being able to provide more robust features (mobile deposit).

The downsides are arguably higher development costs / OS compatibility, and having to install a separate app.

I used to do banking on my (touch tone) phone before I did online banking. I still do online banking on my PC because my budget spreadsheet is on my PC, right next to my browser window.

Personally, I don't think this is about banking apps. I'm kinda surprised an article talking about ATMs and teller jobs barely mentions cash, checks & cards and doesn't mention paypal or venmo at all. I used ATMs less when it became less of a necessity to carry cash.

You don't use cash to buy things online. Even in person, outside of brick & mortars, paypal/venmo became in vogue at some point in the past. Those are banking apps in their own way.

Yes? Why would I go over to my computer and boot it up and sit down and type in a website when I could just pull my phone out tap tap done?

I'm always a bit confused in these discussions what is special about banking software of any kind at all. My bank has an app, but other than checking a balance every now and again, the only reason I use it is because it's also my insurance provider and I make claims through it. For actual banking, I don't really do any, through the website or the app. My pay is direct deposit. My purchases are on credit with payment details generally stored with the vendor; otherwise, I have cards or use the numbers. Monthly balance payoff is autopay. I had to go into the website once to set all that up however many years ago I don't remember, but people talk in these threads like they're in their banking apps directly moving money around all the time, actually making payments with the app. Why?

Doing it on the go via the app is much easier than using the web app through the main OS browser just because the UI is optimized. not a problem with using the web app approach, just that there isnt as much investment in it due to zeitgeist i guess.

Also since you are already using 2FA, you are already on the phone so might as well do basic operations there.

I can also look at transactions in my bed before going to bed so that is nice.

If I need to look at a support ticket or look at transactions more deeply, i still use the desktop approach.

Right, I'm going out of my way to avoid inviting Google/Apple and their respective app store surveillance ecosystems into my transactions. I don't even have banking apps installed. I don't understand why so many people are prostrating themselves to this future for minor convenience.

Mobile payments (at least in places where they are executed correctly) are certainly a huge improvement over physically exchanging cash and change. I haven't needed to take out my wallet for years.

You just need to understand how things are now. Here are few modern smartphone conventions that render banking on an old-fashioned PC totally obsolete:

- Remembering that you need to do banking, but waiting to do it until you're at home in front of your computer. This is impossible now, and if I don't follow the impulse the moment it occurs, the impulse will forever escape into the ether.

- Even the mere mention of needing to observe a URL is often far too scary. Typing one in, or using a browser bookmark is of course, impossible.

- Using a keyboard and mouse. It's just too onerous to use tools that are efficient and accurate. Modern users would much rather try to build a mental map of the curvature of their thumb, so that when they touch their touchscreen and obscure the button they're hitting, they they can reference that 3D mental map to guess at what portion of the screen they've actually pressed. Getting this wrong 30% of the time does not detract from the allure of touch screens.

- Using a normal-sized screen that allows you to actually see a lot of data at once, or even use multiple tabs. Again, this is really unthinkable. Of course it be be completely unacceptable to need to wait to do your banking until you're in front of a computer. It's 2026, and I cannot be bothered to remember to do a task later. But, in needing to always follow every impulse immediately, it doesn't matter that my phone screen only displays a small amount of information at once, or that tabbed browsing is impossible in a banking app. Those inconveniences are acceptable, or even welcome!

How do you explain the data contradicting this? I believe that your bank did this but the data seems to show otherwise.

There are ATMs not attached to bank branches. They could have replaced the branches with ATMs before. (I do wonder what bank tellers are doing these days. I mean actual tellers, not investment advisors and jobs like that.)

That's a really good point. They forced the adoption of these services by kneecapping the tellers, in terms of what they had access to.

Domestic appliances were extremely disruptive. (vacuum cleaners, fridges, washing machines, air conditioners, ...) Domestic servants were eliminated. But there was no paradigm shift.

People still live in houses and prepare and store food, and clean their houses and clothes. Minor tasks of domestic servants (making beds, tidying, etc.) were folded in to the job of the homemaker, who was demoted from a supervisory role.

Mainframe computers emptied out accounts departments in large companies, eliminating invoicing clerks, general ledger clerks, stock control clerks, payroll clerks and many more specialised roles. No paradigm shift. Accounting is still accounting.

Typing pools were emptied by the introduction of the Lasrjet printer and the personal computer. Their minor tasks (spell-checking, grammar correction, etc.) were taken over by other people. No paradigm shift, just a task automated.

Telephone operators were eliminated by automatic exchanges (central and customer-premises). No paradigm shift, that came later with digital radio phones ("smartphones"), and didn't cause wholesale job elimination.

The binary distinction between task replacement and paradigm shift is flawed. Reality is much more varied and fluid.

That labor cheapness is enabled by a cheapness of cost of living. Those things all tend to feed onto each other.

> 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 useful labor. Yes you could do it yourself, but it gives them a job which they can ultimately use to afford food and where they live.

I mostly only feel bad for kids doing that sort of labor as it means they aren't getting an education. But for an adult? It speaks to something a bit right about their economic situation that they can stay a float by merely fetching items in a store.

I wish in the US that it was possible for someone to make a living doing doordash or instacart.

> fetch items in a store. Why?

Because the presence of a human likely prevents shoplifting and / or vandalism. It must make economic sense for the gas station owner to employ a human, and I suppose this is the sense.

What actual useful skill do you think the gas station keeper could learn? Is their employment the thing that prevents them from learning these skills?

Some countries prioritize having low unemployment numbers, because they believe that unemployment leads to unrest. Governments can choose to subsidize the cost of labor to achieve this.

Also I think it is preposterous to claim that these people are trapped.

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.

That's great. I'd not be opposed to you having the option to do those things by yourself. Personally though, I'd rather just have someone who's paid to do it than have ads pumped into my ears as I pump gas or mess with the finicky self-checkout machines as someone watches me anyway. Now, if giving these things up would result in those employees ending up with a better station in life or more meaningful work, that would be something to consider. But in reality, the only result of forcing me to do those things will be higher corporate margins. So, no thanks.

It is a different mindset and they are happy with what they are doing. I come from India where there is a ton of that labor. When I lived there, I had a couple of full time house help, supplemented by cook etc as needed. They had plenty of time by themselves. They would genuinely just zone out when they had free time, even significantly long. THey liked the easiness of the job, and the fact that once it is over, it is just over. No need to think about tomorrow, take your work in your head etc. A lot of the world's people are like that, maybe even a significant majority.

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.

> Why? They're completely unneeded, I can do (and WANT to do) that myself.

Do you WANT to do that?

I've tried to run my own items at the corner store via the automatic checkout. Whenever I buy lightweight items or items that lose weight during the day (fresh bread) the anti fraud weighing system lights up. And I like my fresh bread.

So I've gone back to the one manned checkout. Judging by the lines I get sometimes, so have most other customers.

Because mass unemployment is a bad thing, and the costs are lowered so people can actually survive on lower wages. Meanwhile young people in the West cannot even get a minimum wage job at McDonald’s

if the rich western world you mentioned is the US, I'd like to remind you that no economy needs that amount of fast food workers

pretty degrading to call what they do useless

we all need to do something

As far as I can tell, it's entirely that. The things the author cites as how mobile banking supplanted going to the bank (paying for things with debit cards, getting your paycheck direct deposited, etc) have nothing to do with mobile banking. They are all just as you said: we live in an increasingly cashless society, the only reason to go to the branch is to deposit or withdraw money, so the need for tellers has gone off a cliff.

In which way is the cashless society due to smartphones? Cards did that already before Apple/GooglePay were a thing.

Maybe there are a lot of bad managers (almost certainly there are) but I feel like a lot of the talk about what a manager doesn’t address the true role of a manager, the whole point of a manager is to address uncertainty, and look to the future. The manager shouldn’t have any “tasks” per say, but in the vending machine example, they’re the one that keeps an eye on their suppliers, negotiates, changes suppliers if one fails, decides how much inventory to store in a warehouse.

But like, I as a manager try and delegate the coordination role yes. Unlike an IC, loosely speaking the more ‘tasks’ I’m doing as a manager, the more I consider myself to be failing at the job.

> The troubling thought I had is that AI does not displace the technicians, or the vending machines. It replaces the manager.

This is really why ai will have a more profound impact on the society: it is fundamentally changing the hierarchy of conpetence we have gotten so accustomed to.

“Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'.”

What exactly is your competing theory?

I am very very glad that most of the world has moved on from this way of doing things. Such a terrible waste of time on a large scale.

An American colleague once said the following: if something is stupidly inefficient or done in an illogical way in the US, it's because someone makes money on it.

In general, it's just multiple times as long as it should be.

That is why a fully automated firm would be a paradigm shift. Instead of requiring someone to be responsible and to QA things, you just let AI systems be responsible internally, and the company responsible as a whole for legal concerns.

This idea of an automated firm relies on the premise that AI will become more capable and reliable than people.

Also, employing “infinite intelligence” by splitting it into “workers” and organizing them into firms cannot be farther than a paradigm change.

It’s strictly an attempt to shoehorn the new tech into an existing paradigm, just because right now the system prompt makes an “agent” behave differently than the one with a different prompt.

It’s unimaginative to say the least.

yeah weird. Same goes for the "ATMs increased demand for tellers" strange idea suggested earlier in the article, which was automatically disproven right there by actually attributing the growth in tellers to deregulation. Which one is it?

A personal banker and a bank teller are not the same thing. I think you're conflating or confusing two different professions.

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.

That’s not a bank teller’s job, at least not in the U. S. You’re confusing that job with something else.

Bad performing and long lasting you say?

Right around when my local credit union began requiring (IMHO insecure) 2FA, I coincidentally moved right next door to a branch location.

Since I refuse to implement their "security" "feature," I just walk into their office every time I need a simple balance inquiry/transfer. They probably hate that I have just enough money deposited to consider my inconveniencing them profitable.

Worth the $1.00 monthly "in-person banking fee"

> Arent these basically minimum wage jobs? I mean throw a few dollars an hour on top of that, but there are plenty of jobs like this.

Getting rid of them isn't a good thing.

Entry-level jobs are important.

For better or worse, the iPhone kickstarted the mobile revolution.

60% is pretty well in “falling off a cliff” territory. The graph is misleading but that phrase, to me, is not.

60% job loss is not off a cliff?

That huge job loss also means no hiring. If you were a bank teller you would seriously need to consider a job switch

Probably a bigger sign to look for would be average age of bank tellers vs other occupations. If it's trending higher, then it's likely just people who've been doing the job for a long time and serving other older customers. I have a feeling not many young people are becoming tellers or even needing their services, but I can't verify it.

>are we losing (or did we never have) a shared definition of the word "think"

People have been saying, “the computer is thinking,” while webpages are loading or software is running for as long as I’ve been consciously aware. I agree there’s something new about describing AI as, “literally a machine that can think,” but language has always had fuzzy borders