davidoks.blog/p/why-the-atm-didnt-kill-bank-teller
2 corrections found
We do not, contrary to what Vance claims, have “more bank tellers today than we did when the ATM was created”: we in fact have far fewer.
This comparison is wrong if you use the standard BLS count of teller jobs. Official sources show about 150,000 tellers in 1970 and 347,400 in 2024, so there are more tellers today than around the ATM’s introduction, not fewer.
Full reasoning
The article appears to switch from total teller jobs to a full-time-only series.
Official Bureau of Labor Statistics sources show:
- About 150,000 tellers of all kinds were employed in 1970 (near the period when ATMs were first being introduced in the U.S.).
- Tellers held about 347,400 jobs in 2024.
That means the U.S. still has more teller jobs today than it had around the ATM’s introduction, contradicting the article’s statement that we have "far fewer."
The likely source of the mistake is that the article later uses the FRED/BLS series for "Employed full time: Wage and salary workers: Tellers occupations", which is a narrower measure. That series shows 183,000 in 2025, but it excludes part-time tellers and is not the same thing as total teller employment. Using that narrower series to rebut Vance’s broader claim about the number of bank tellers produces the wrong comparison.
3 sources
- Full text of Occupational Outlook Handbook, 1972-73 edition | FRASER | St. Louis Fed
Approximately 150,000 tellers of all kinds were employed in 1970.
- Tellers : Occupational Outlook Handbook: : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Tellers held about 347,400 jobs in 2024.
- Table Data - Employed full time: Wage and salary workers: Tellers occupations: 16 years and over | FRED | St. Louis Fed
DATE VALUE ... 2024-01-01 173 ... 2025-01-01 183.
And indeed the number of bank tellers per branch declined significantly: from 21 tellers per branch to about 13 per branch once ATMs had hit saturation.
The cited historical numbers are for total branch employees, not tellers. A Federal Reserve paper says urban commercial-bank branches averaged about 20 employees in 1988 and a little over 13 in 2004, so “21 tellers per branch” is not correct.
Full reasoning
This sentence misstates the staffing figures used in the ATM/teller literature.
The Federal Reserve paper commonly cited for this point says that in the average urban market, commercial-bank branches fell from about 20 employees per branch in 1988 to a little over 13 employees per branch in 2004. It does not say 21 tellers per branch fell to 13 tellers per branch.
That distinction matters: the paper is measuring all branch employees, not just tellers. So the article’s wording turns an all-staffing figure into a teller-only figure, and even nudges the starting value upward from about 20 to 21.
Put differently, if the average branch had about 20 employees total in 1988, it cannot also have had 21 tellers on average.
2 sources
- Recent Trends in the Number and Size of Bank Branches: An Examination of Likely Determinants | Federal Reserve Board
Rough calculations using data from County Business Patterns suggest that in the average urban market, the number of employees per branch operated by commercial banks declined from about 20 employees in 1988 to 16 by 1994 and to a little over 13 by 2004.
- Full text of Occupational Outlook Handbook, 1972-73 edition | FRASER | St. Louis Fed
Clerks account for nearly two-thirds of all employees... Bank officers are the second largest group... This chapter describes three large occupations unique to banking—clerks, tellers, and officers.