117 ms·

Author here. > Teller employment peaked in 2007 at over 600,000. It's down to 472,000 as of 2018 and projected to decline another 12% by 2028. By that point w

Author here. > Teller employment peaked in 2007 at over 600,000. It's down to 472,000 as of 2018 and projected to decline another 12% by 2028. By that point we're not talking about the effect of ATMs anymore, which were introduced in the late 1980s/early 1990s. This effect is more likely due to online banking and banking apps. We don't know yet how this change reallocated > "the prediction of technological unemployment was premature" from "the idea of technological unemployment is mistaken." Not really. If you look at the other example (spreadsheet apps and bookkeepers) you see that even if a job stops existing, the remaining tasks get allocated elsewhere over time. This overall dynamic is supported by the researchers in labor economics (see papers linked in the post) This doesn't mean the transition is smooth, or even benefitial, for the job holder, but it doesn't translate to long run unemployability.

freewilly1040 7y ago
Even if the decline in teller employment is not due to ATM's, the parable still suffers if another convenience innovation came along and did kill jobs.
- VHRanger 7y ago
  The problem isn't that automation kills jobs. Those jobs reallocate over time. We've seen automation act on the economy since the 1820s and nothing about deep learning or big data changes these dynamics. The problem is that those who do lose their jobs have their lives altered for the worse, and those who get the better parts of automation don't share the benefits with the ones losing from it.
- VHRanger 7y ago
  It didn't kill jobs in aggregate -- unemployment is at its lowest in decades. The bank teller jobs might be disappearing over time, but they'll get reallocated. The point of the article is that that reallocation process can be painful for those affected and increases inequality.
  - chii 7y ago
    is unemployment really as low as the reported figures? i dont know what to think after looking at http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-chart...
    - VHRanger 7y ago
      Shadowstats is garbage. Their inflation index is literally the official CPI index plus a constant (~2.8 last time I looked). He's that lazy about his scam. The maintainer of shadowstats isnt in the business of maintaining an honest set of metrics, he's in the business of selling misinformation around hard to measure things.
- roenxi 7y ago
  We don't know if innovation killed jobs here, we only have a graph showing there are less tellers. It is expected that specific job titles will be obsoleted by technology. That is not a major issue when talking about the net effects on jobs. Society is littered with job titles (like Smith, Turner, Cartwright, Ackerman, etc, etc) that used to be everywhere and are now specialist roles or extinct.
philipkglass 7y ago
Economists often assume unlimited human wants and limited resources, giving rise to scarcity. Under the assumption of unlimited wants it is perfectly reasonable to predict that 40 years from now paid employment will remain as common as it was 40 years ago even if we don't know what the jobs will actually be. I have a somewhat different perspective. I believe that human wants expressed in market economy terms -- e.g. "market demand" -- are satiable and becoming increasingly satiated among households with buying power (top two income quintiles in the US, for example [1]). There's limited demand for more consumption of services that already existed in the 20th century. You can only go to the doctor, the dentist, or the barber so often before more-frequent visits become a chore instead of a luxury. New inventions may spur different demands but scope for aggregate growth is limited by hours in a day. Scrolling through Instagram replaces going to the movies and maybe some day exploring virtual reality replaces scrolling through Instagram. That reallocates entertainment demands but it doesn't necessarily mean more aggregate consumption or entertainment-employment. There is big growth coming in home health aides, elder care, and similar jobs. But that's due to an aging population rather than the development of new service jobs for the 21st century. Big growth in demand for "gig economy" services? Maybe. We'll see after the VCs stop tolerating losses. [1] The unmet wants of the lower income quintiles are less significant in a market economy because they don't have growing buying power. Two former bank tellers aren't going to find employment walking each others' dogs.

freewilly1040 7y ago

Even if the decline in teller employment is not due to ATM's, the parable still suffers if another convenience innovation came along and did kill jobs.

VHRanger 7y ago
The problem isn't that automation kills jobs. Those jobs reallocate over time. We've seen automation act on the economy since the 1820s and nothing about deep learning or big data changes these dynamics. The problem is that those who do lose their jobs have their lives altered for the worse, and those who get the better parts of automation don't share the benefits with the ones losing from it.
VHRanger 7y ago
It didn't kill jobs in aggregate -- unemployment is at its lowest in decades. The bank teller jobs might be disappearing over time, but they'll get reallocated. The point of the article is that that reallocation process can be painful for those affected and increases inequality.
- chii 7y ago
  is unemployment really as low as the reported figures? i dont know what to think after looking at http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-chart...
  - VHRanger 7y ago
    Shadowstats is garbage. Their inflation index is literally the official CPI index plus a constant (~2.8 last time I looked). He's that lazy about his scam. The maintainer of shadowstats isnt in the business of maintaining an honest set of metrics, he's in the business of selling misinformation around hard to measure things.
roenxi 7y ago
We don't know if innovation killed jobs here, we only have a graph showing there are less tellers. It is expected that specific job titles will be obsoleted by technology. That is not a major issue when talking about the net effects on jobs. Society is littered with job titles (like Smith, Turner, Cartwright, Ackerman, etc, etc) that used to be everywhere and are now specialist roles or extinct.

philipkglass 7y ago

Economists often assume unlimited human wants and limited resources, giving rise to scarcity. Under the assumption of unlimited wants it is perfectly reasonable to predict that 40 years from now paid employment will remain as common as it was 40 years ago even if we don't know what the jobs will actually be. I have a somewhat different perspective. I believe that human wants expressed in market economy terms -- e.g. "market demand" -- are satiable and becoming increasingly satiated among households with buying power (top two income quintiles in the US, for example [1]). There's limited demand for more consumption of services that already existed in the 20th century. You can only go to the doctor, the dentist, or the barber so often before more-frequent visits become a chore instead of a luxury. New inventions may spur different demands but scope for aggregate growth is limited by hours in a day. Scrolling through Instagram replaces going to the movies and maybe some day exploring virtual reality replaces scrolling through Instagram. That reallocates entertainment demands but it doesn't necessarily mean more aggregate consumption or entertainment-employment. There is big growth coming in home health aides, elder care, and similar jobs. But that's due to an aging population rather than the development of new service jobs for the 21st century. Big growth in demand for "gig economy" services? Maybe. We'll see after the VCs stop tolerating losses. [1] The unmet wants of the lower income quintiles are less significant in a market economy because they don't have growing buying power. Two former bank tellers aren't going to find employment walking each others' dogs.