Financial Times: Biggest banks will reduce workforce by 10% and replace them with robots.

[DetlefK]

https://gizmodo.com/goliath-is-winning-the-biggest-u-s-banks-are-set-to-a-1838740347

Over the next decade, U.S. banks, which are investing $150 billion in technology annually, will use automation to eliminate 200,000 jobs, thus facilitating “the greatest transfer from labor to capital” in the industry’s history. The call is coming from inside the house this time, too—both the projection and the quote come from a recent Wells Fargo report, whose lead author, Mike Mayo, told the Financial Times that he expects the industry to shed 10 percent of all of its jobs.

This, Mayo said, will lay the groundwork for, and I quote, “a golden age of banking efficiency.” The job cuts are slated to hit front offices, call centers, and branches the hardest, where 20-30 percent of those roles will be on the chopping block. They will be replaced by better ATMs, automated chatbots, and software instruments that take advantage of big data and cloud computing to make investment decisions.

10%



And now imagine what happens when robots replace 10% of all menial labor workers in the US.
What happens when robots replace 10% of all workers in the service-industry.
What happens when robots replace 10% of all workers in office-jobs.



Whatever the current unemployment-rate is, it will be at least those 10 percentage-points higher in the future.

[appleannie1]

1. I hate to tell them, people put money in their institutions. Robots don't.

As more and more businesses turn to technology (WalMart and self serve. Micky D and Wendy's and computer screen menus) etc. less and less people will be able to put money in banks.

[Hoyt]

2. Sounds like designing, building, maintaining robots is the place to be.

Does computers replacing repetitive work surprise anyone in 2019? It’s been going on for decades.

Sad in many ways, but we better learn how to deal with it. Andrew Yang has some ideas.

[TheFarseer]

3. That's great until

Robots start designing, building and maintaining robots.

[Hoyt]

5. True, but years before you need to get into that field.

People have been afraid of technology for hundreds of years. I think it’s been positive in most respects.

[DetlefK]

4. You cannot be serious.

Let's assume, the demand for robots increases by a factor of 10. Does that mean the industry will need 10 times more people designing robots?

Does that mean they will need 10 times as many human workers building robots, when building stuff is precisely the profession where robots are replacing human workers?



Also, I cannot believe how people still fall for the fairytale of neverending economic growth. The number of customers is limited!
A human will buy only this many cars, no matter how many companies are selling cars.
A human will buy only this many computers and smartphones, no matter how many companies are selling computers and smartphones.
A human will buy only this many house-hold robots, no matter how many companies are selling house-hold robots.
A human will buy only this many apps, no matter how many companies are selling apps.

Once the market is saturated, there is no point in investing in more workers.

If I can build all the robots I want to sell with the robots I have, what's the point in hiring humans?

[Hoyt]

6. Oh, I think emphasis on growth is a big problem. Robots, not so much.

I do worry about people displaced, especially those with few skills for other work. Although, I’d suggest handling that by improving skills.

Like I said Yang has some ideas.

[DetlefK]

7. Human technology has already outpaced the development of human intelligence.

Just take a look at how many people are using the internet intelligently. Our technology has made technology so powerful that it has eclipsed the human ability to use it responsibly.
Most simple example: Thanks to the internet almost any information is available almost anywhere. Theoretically this would make all of us smarter. But in practice we have used this abundance of knowledge to build isolated echo-chambers on social-media where we systematically ignore info we don't like.



Not all people are equal. Each person has their own talents. Not everyone can be anything, no matter how strongly he sets his mind to it.
Some people simply don't have the skills a robot-centric economy demands and they will simply never have these skills.



One of my hobbies is watching videos of pseudoscientists on Youtube. These people have the right tools and access to all the textbooks and encyclopedias they could wish for. But they couldn't conduct a basic experiment if their life depended on it.
Actual quote: "Now the display says 212. I don't know what that number means. It could be anything."

[Newest Reality]

12. It as if they

ignore the fact that it is a circle, economically:

Producer/Provider ---> Product/Service ---> Consumer/User/Worker/Labor ---> Capital Profit ---> Producer/Provider

Something to that effect. Pretending that the numbers of consumers and their income is not just as important as the other factors is a flaw.

I agree with your points and think of it that way as well. You know, the same applies to the wealthy when it comes to justifying their increasing share of everything. They can only buy so many of this or that.

Are they going to manufacture automated customers and turn into a virtual thing?

Thanks for pointing that out.

[beachbumbob]

8. duh, called ATMs

[DetlefK]

9. Not just ATMs. People doing the paperwork. People reading reports and recommending investments.

What do you think who keeps the files in order at a bank?

What do you think who reads economic reports and decides how much interest the bank should offer for which investment?

[USALiberal]

10. You can't stop progress. Nt

[Chuuku Davis]

11. Many people are unemployable

I now work at at federal clinic for low income patients.
They have no skills and and can't work.
They need support.