
Robots will not take your job - twowo
https://www.wired.com/2017/08/robots-will-not-take-your-job/
======
crdoconnor
The "robotjobpocalypse" was pretty much always just a politically expedient
way of scapegoating aggregate job losses caused by outsourcing and austerity.

It's also something that some companies (notably Foxconn & Restaurants) like
to threaten regularly to keep their employees on their toes.

------
tyingq
I would guess there are some former bank tellers that disagree.

~~~
CryptoPunk
Ironically, there are far more bank tellers now than before ATMs were
introduced:

[http://www.aei.org/publication/what-atms-bank-tellers-
rise-r...](http://www.aei.org/publication/what-atms-bank-tellers-rise-robots-
and-jobs/)

But of course, some occupations will be obsoleted by automation. The flip side
to that is that it creates consumer savings that result in spending in new
areas of the economy, which creates replacement jobs.

~~~
dragonwriter
If you look at that chart, the growth rate in tellers dropped precipitously as
the ATMs came online, and the stabilized at a very low rate (and that's
absolute number of tellers, not proportion of population.)

~~~
qbrass
The population grew about 24% between 1990 and 2010, while bank teller jobs
only grew 10%.

But the 90's had a recession (the cause of that dip you mentioned), and ATMs
allowed banks to expand instead of having to close offices because they
couldn't keep them fully staffed. So ATMs either cost bank tellers 80,000ish
jobs or stopped at least as many from getting fired in the 90's, while
creating 50,000 more jobs.

None of it matters, because ATMs could still improve enough to replace bank
tellers outright instead of just taking care of the low-hanging fruit that
eats up half their time.

