Hacker News

> 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.

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

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...

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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 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%

> 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.

we're going to find out

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

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.

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.

> 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Ever deposit a check via PC browser?

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.

No, the article is wrong about the iPhone.

It's the Internet that killed bank tellers.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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'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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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?

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

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"

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?

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