What John Oliver and Google’s Eric Schmidt got wrong about ATMs & teller jobs

Many Americans are understandably anxious about the future impact of AI and automation on their careers. Business and technology leaders such as Eric Schmidt of Google have tried to assuage some of those fears by pointing to other historical examples of technological automation that were not hugely disruptive. A famous example is that of the introduction of the ATM. When the technology was introduced, it generated fears amongst some that tellers would lose jobs. Instead, Eric pointed out that there wound up being more tellers than ever. John Oliver echoed similar sentiments on his HBO show based on the data.

The interesting thing about data is that you can tell different stories and arrive at the same point. It’s important to look at the total context and to be as rigorous about the setting the appropriate context as you are with collecting data about an outcome. I actually was a teller in the early 2000s when the number of tellers was, in fact, rising. I vividly recall when bank branches were busy places.

ATMs reduced the number of tellers required in banks by a 1/3rd. In essence, 1 in 3 tellers was automated out of a job. In the U.S., the number of tellers overall increased because the number of branches grew by 43%. If you have a branch, you have to have someone in there to serve customers who prefer to bank in person or have a nonroutine request.

Some might posit that the bank growth during this period was the result of the money saved from having fewer tellers per branch. At the end of the day, banks open new branches to pursue new customers and grow their business. From 1980–2006, the population of the U.S. grew by nearly a 1/3rd. The nation added over 71 million people. Banks opened new branches to compete for the business of the 71 million new people.

The strategy of opening new branches worked out well for Banks. During that period of time, profits increased 800% and bank deposits went up 355%. The banking industry and the U.S. experienced profound economic growth. Banks needed to have at least one teller for each new location.

Another thing to keep in mind is that technology never idles, it progresses and new technologies emerge. New technologies made it even less necessary to have the same number of tellers. According to the BLS, since 2006, which was just before the iPhone and mobile banking were introduced, we’ve lost nearly a quarter of bank tellers, and we are projected to continue to lose more. Now, there are fewer tellers.

Moreover, automation might have negatively impacted tellers’ career mobility. Richard Davis, CEO of U.S. Bancorp, one of the nation’s largest banks, told the WSJ, “Some of the best bankers found their way into the position by starting out as a teller.” Sara Jerving reports “these days, few 18-year-olds starting out behind a branch counter can expect to land in the corner office.”

Jerving reported that by 2013, tellers saw their wages fall by almost 7%, after adjusting for inflation. She wrote about a teller forced to live in a shelter with her child. U.C. Berkley found that 31% of bank tellers are on public assistance programs such as Medicaid and SNAP. Many of the teller opportunities are part-time and without the same benefits.

Fortunately, bank executives have acknowledged the situation and have started addressing it by meaningfully raising wages to their lowest level employees. Bank of America now offers tellers salaries of $20/hr. These are good signs for these employees. To argue that tellers weren’t detrimentally impacted by technological disruption and to go as far as to claim that they were helped by it doesn’t appear to bear out.

If you would like to learn more about malls and what’s happening in the retail industry, be sure to check out my book, “Retail Apocalypse: The Death of Malls, Retailers & Jobs.”