David Oks had a great post yesterday on the classic parable of how the adoption of ATMs did not lead to the predicted job losses among bank tellers. In fact, the opposite occurred: the number of bank tellers rose. I heard this story recounted several times in early discussions I had about the anticipated effect of AI on labour. I think I first heard it from Ryan Khurana. More recently it has been trotted out by US Vice President JD Vance.
The problem with this story is that the key statistic quoted alongside it, namely that there are more bank tellers than ever before, is no longer true. The famous graph supporting this assertion stops in 2010, and with good reason: the number of bank tellers has sharply fallen since then.
I think I had come across this fact before, this second half of the famous ATM–bank teller story, but it wasn’t until I read David Oks’s post that I understood the reason behind it. Quite simply, mobile banking ate physical banks. The ATM didn’t reduce the demand for bank tellers because it simply changed the kind of labour they did inside the bank. The iPhone made it so we didn’t need to go to the bank at all. It changed the paradigm. Explained this way, it seems obvious. Many new banks (including my own) do not have physical locations and never did.
What does this mean for the future of work? Nobody knows for sure yet. AI may be the ATM for some jobs, but for others it may be the iPhone.