If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NYPost)   New breed of ATMs expand services, give exact change and take away even more jobs   (nypost.com) divider line 36
    More: Spiffy, checkouts  
•       •       •

1797 clicks; posted to Business » on 24 Nov 2012 at 7:21 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



36 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-24 12:07:17 AM
Because we should all support spurious employment of people doing jobs that a chimp in a shirt can do...
 
2012-11-24 12:12:32 AM
www.nypost.com

Sorry, much more interested in the girl in the picture off to the right. Hubba, hubba....
 
2012-11-24 07:46:30 AM

LordZorch: Because we should all support spurious employment of people doing jobs that a chimp in a shirt can do...


Or a giant metal box can do. More ATMs mean more security, more security means more people doing a job that technically requires skilled labor.

/I say technically because it's a license thing.
 
2012-11-24 08:12:39 AM

LordZorch: Because we should all support spurious employment of people doing jobs that a chimp in a shirt can do...


Why do you hate America? Don't you understand how much the buggy whip industry contributes to the GDP?

Once a job is created it can never be destroyed, period. Unless you hate the Middle Class, that is.

/change "buggy whip" to "defense" if you're feeling smug, right wingers
 
2012-11-24 08:31:10 AM

stratagos: LordZorch: Because we should all support spurious employment of people doing jobs that a chimp in a shirt can do...

Why do you hate America? Don't you understand how much the buggy whip industry contributes to the GDP?

Once a job is created it can never be destroyed, period. Unless you hate the Middle Class, that is.

/change "buggy whip" to "defense" if you're feeling smug, right wingers


Change "created" to "unionized" if you're feeling extra smug, left wingers.

/ugh, I hate replying to politard statements with other politard statements
//I'm going to take a shower
 
2012-11-24 08:36:09 AM
Can I still get two tens for a five?

/if that's obscure... I have a lawn, you should get off it.
 
2012-11-24 08:50:47 AM
withdrawing as much as $1,000 in any denomination, even as small as $1

I don't know what you guys are talking about. They're doing their part to help keep single moms employed.
 
2012-11-24 09:04:43 AM
That was the original point of ATMs-cost savings to the bank through staff reductions. I still remember some of those early ones that would have a plexiglass cover over the keypad that would slide up after you inserted your card like something out of Star Trek. They'd give you $5 bills if you wanted.

No service charge from the owner of the ATM for using it, though your bank would charge you a network fee (around $.50) if you used another bank's machine.
Now it's something between $2.50 and $5.00 from the owner of the ATM, and depending on your bank you can get dinged by them for a buck or two as well.

It's early and I haven't had my coffee yet, but I think my point is I'm not sure why it's gotten -MORE- expensive to use the ATM than it was 25 years ago when technology has gotten cheaper, better, and more reliable over that amount of time. Gouging is my guess.

/Lawn, etc
 
kab
2012-11-24 09:11:54 AM

LordZorch: Because we should all support spurious employment of people doing jobs that a chimp in a shirt can do...


And in over in the politics tab, lets biatch about why Obama hasn't lowered unemployment enough.
 
2012-11-24 09:16:28 AM
Subby, that's an egregious spelling error. Everyone knows its jerbs, not jobs.

FYI: This comment brought to you by a device created by Steve Jerbs.
 
2012-11-24 09:23:08 AM
There have always been two consequences of technology and automation:

1. They make people more productive, so they can earn more. This is true for some types of jobs, e. g., secretaries, financial traders.

2. They compete with people, so people earn less or nothing. True for more types of jobs, e. g., auto makers, bank tellers, Walmart workers, Web designers.
 
2012-11-24 09:25:56 AM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-11-24 09:59:19 AM
You never go ATM.
 
2012-11-24 10:28:32 AM
Or we could be using all this technology and automation to start getting toward the reasonably-paid 30-hour default workweek that US politicians were campaigning on 50-80 years ago.

I know, I know, commie talk...
 
2012-11-24 10:45:56 AM
forgottenflix.com

Honey! C'mon over here, Sugar-buns. This machine just called me an asshole!
 
2012-11-24 10:50:19 AM

buzzcut73: That was the original point of ATMs-cost savings to the bank through staff reductions. I still remember some of those early ones that would have a plexiglass cover over the keypad that would slide up after you inserted your card like something out of Star Trek. They'd give you $5 bills if you wanted.

No service charge from the owner of the ATM for using it, though your bank would charge you a network fee (around $.50) if you used another bank's machine.
Now it's something between $2.50 and $5.00 from the owner of the ATM, and depending on your bank you can get dinged by them for a buck or two as well.

It's early and I haven't had my coffee yet, but I think my point is I'm not sure why it's gotten -MORE- expensive to use the ATM than it was 25 years ago when technology has gotten cheaper, better, and more reliable over that amount of time. Gouging is my guess.

/Lawn, etc


First one I ever saw did ones / fives / twenties

I never pay to take my own money out. Doesn't your bank belong to a network? Maybe you should get Credit Union account somewhere.

And a ATM that dispenses ones would be great at a strip club ..
 
2012-11-24 11:14:49 AM

CujoQuarrel:
First one I ever saw did ones / fives / twenties

I never pay to take my own money out. Doesn't your bank belong to a network? Maybe you should get Credit Union account somewhere.

And a ATM that dispenses ones would be great at a strip club ..


I didn't say I have that problem, I do belong to a Credit Union. Even the foreign ATM fees of old (50 cents or whatever) were understandable, as there are network costs and such to cover. What I was mainly biatching about is that on top of the foreign ATM fee your own bank may or may not charge, you now also get gouged by whatever entity owns the machine, and not for a reasonable fee that might cover costs, but something that is orders of magnitude higher.

Kinda like how it also annoys me that if you were to write me a check from Wells Fargo, and I went to WF to cash a check drawn on their bank, they'll charge me to do so. There is no real reason to do so, other than Fark You That's Why.
 
2012-11-24 12:47:09 PM

Lawnchair: Or we could be using all this technology and automation to start getting toward the reasonably-paid 30-hour default workweek that US politicians were campaigning on 50-80 years ago.


What's the difference? There's X amount of work that needs to be done by Y people. You decrease X by automating some of that work. So we could either decrease the number of employees or we could give each employee fewer hours...

If employees were just payed by the hour it wouldn't make a difference which you chose. But since employers have to pay various taxes, insurances, etc it's going to cost them more to employ more people for the same amount of work.

So... what? Employers are just supposed to pay more for their labor out of the kindness of their heart? Because people feel entitled to more money? The ONLY solutions are to create more work for people to do (grow the economy) or shrink the population. Or both, I suppose. Right now we are suffering from an acute opposition to both of those goals. Weak economy and too many damn people.
 
2012-11-24 01:19:06 PM

Honest Bender: The ONLY solutions are to create more work for people to do (grow the economy) or shrink the population


The shorter workweek artificially reduces not the population, but the number of labor-hours in circulation, making them more valuable. Which, effectively, "shrinks the population". Without the deleterious effect that actually shrinking the population would also shrink demand for goods/services commensurately. Which doesn't help.
 
2012-11-24 01:56:04 PM

Lawnchair: The shorter workweek artificially reduces not the population, but the number of labor-hours in circulation, making them more valuable.


Changing the number of hours people work does not, in any way, change the amount of work that needs to be done. So businesses will do one of the following:

1. Hire more people to do the same amount of work.
How does that help anyone? Everyone gets fewer hours and thus less pay.

2. Keep the same number of staff and just do less work.
Great, now EVERYONE is making less money. Employees and employer.

3. Force staff to get more work done per hour.
Worst solution so far. Now employees can enjoy working harder for less money. But hey, 30 hour work week!

So which of those three options are you mugging for?
 
2012-11-24 02:07:40 PM

Honest Bender: Changing the number of hours people work does not, in any way, change the amount of work that needs to be done.


No. It reduces the supply of labor-hours. Which, by simple supply and demand, get more valuable per hour. Thus, option one or two (the employer will need to hire more people to do the same amount of work, or some other business can take up the slack), but net pay will not decrease as dramatically.
 
2012-11-24 02:29:27 PM

kab: LordZorch: Because we should all support spurious employment of people doing jobs that a chimp in a shirt can do...

And in over in the politics tab, lets biatch about why Obama hasn't lowered unemployment enough.


OK, but first I need to ship these union jobs over to Mexico/China/India/Indonesia/Taiwan so I can exploit some super-cheap labor for five years.
 
2012-11-24 04:49:04 PM
Why do ATMs cost money to use? Originally, they were replacing tellers, now they are a separate cost-center.

ATMs require:

ATM hardware technicians.
Network technicians.
Phone company employees
Armored cars
Armored car drivers. (at $70,000 per cassette, we are talking serious cash.)

Since people expect money to be available 24x365.2467, it starts getting expensive.

Yeah, I used to be one of the network techs.
 
2012-11-24 05:02:42 PM

Lawnchair: It reduces the supply of labor-hours. Which, by simple supply and demand, get more valuable per hour.


That might be true if it lowered the amount of available labor below the level of demand for that labor. It wouldn't. Instead, it's just going to cause companies to resort to one of the three choices I outlined above. You seem to think that if we mandate a 30 hour work week, all of a sudden employers are going to want to pay people more per hour. That's poo-brained thinking.
 
2012-11-24 07:06:15 PM

buzzcut73: CujoQuarrel:
First one I ever saw did ones / fives / twenties

I never pay to take my own money out. Doesn't your bank belong to a network? Maybe you should get Credit Union account somewhere.

And a ATM that dispenses ones would be great at a strip club ..

I didn't say I have that problem, I do belong to a Credit Union. Even the foreign ATM fees of old (50 cents or whatever) were understandable, as there are network costs and such to cover. What I was mainly biatching about is that on top of the foreign ATM fee your own bank may or may not charge, you now also get gouged by whatever entity owns the machine, and not for a reasonable fee that might cover costs, but something that is orders of magnitude higher.

Kinda like how it also annoys me that if you were to write me a check from Wells Fargo, and I went to WF to cash a check drawn on their bank, they'll charge me to do so. There is no real reason to do so, other than Fark You That's Why.


Well and they'd arrest you since i don't have an account at Wells Fargo but I'm easily .. hey look a shiny object ...
 
2012-11-24 07:07:35 PM

Honest Bender: Lawnchair: Or we could be using all this technology and automation to start getting toward the reasonably-paid 30-hour default workweek that US politicians were campaigning on 50-80 years ago.

What's the difference? There's X amount of work that needs to be done by Y people. You decrease X by automating some of that work. So we could either decrease the number of employees or we could give each employee fewer hours...

....

The ONLY solutions are to create more work for people to do (grow the economy) or shrink the population. Or both, I suppose. Right now we are suffering from an acute opposition to both of those goals. Weak economy and too many damn people.


Or just cut down on the number of people ....
 
2012-11-24 07:12:01 PM
The fact is most jobs that people currently do don't need to be done: we don't need so many bank tellers and cashiers, we don't need four competing fast-food places on every corner, most desk jobs could be done by computers, etc.

And the jobs that need doing, like fixing our rotting physical infrastructure, don't get done; e.g., bridges collapse carrying rush-hour traffic from years of neglect.

The fact that vast numbers of people have been unemployed so long they no longer count as officially unemployed and instead of dying of starvation are eating themselves to death should tell you several bad things about the way our society is structured. One is that we actually have too much food here and instead of finding effective ways to get it to where it's needed we'd rather encourage our own fat people to gorge themselves even more; another is that there are too damn many of us for most of us to have meaningful lives that contribute to the world around us.

I suggest a nuclear winter. A good plague would also help.
 
2012-11-24 07:15:59 PM

kab: LordZorch:

Because we should all support spurious employment of people doing jobs that a chimp in a shirt can do...

And in over in the politics tab, lets biatch about why Obama hasn't lowered unemployment enough.


The fact is we have enough wealth in the USA for American to be assured of basic sustenance whether s/he works or not. And this is the best we know to do with it.
 
2012-11-24 07:25:48 PM
"it will destroy jobs" is the number 2 dumbest reason to do or not do something ever. Jobs may be lost but other jobs get created. With higher profits from the improved efficiency the banks can reinvest it elsewhere creating jobs.

/Number 1 being "Won't somebody please think of the children"
 
2012-11-24 07:43:44 PM
Honest Bender:

There's X amount of work that needs to be done by Y people. You decrease X by automating some of that work. So we could either decrease the number of employees or we could give each employee fewer hours...

Or we could eat more people.

Shrinking the population would help greatly, as would switching resources to jobs go undone from flipping burgers etc.

Another thing that'd help would be exporting the American revolution to the Third World in the right way: conquest, annexation and incorporation into a large semi-socialist economy. Along the way we could ban burqas, female genital mutilation, child prostitution, slavery, artificial famines, and a great deal of the environmental degradation caused by our current world system of competing nation-states struggling to pay their debts to "international finance."

But what we'll probably do is create even more useless fatter stupider people to expend every resource we can get at until there's nothing left but rock and sewage. You know, the gray goo problem on two legs.

As something to do as we work out an even more rational solution, cannibalism would reduce our numbers while giving the rest of the world a rest. Why bother growing grain to feed hogs to turn into pork chops to distribute to Walmart, using lots of water, coal and petrochemicals in the process, when our cities are already chock full of tender juicy fat people? We could just declare everyone with a BMI of over 40 to be fair game, or we could harvest them in an organized and centralized manner. Either way, those who are smart enough to not get eaten will be our new ruling class.
 
2012-11-24 08:07:32 PM

The One True TheDavid: Shrinking the population would help greatly


Again, genocide would further reduce demand. Which is the wrong direction in a deflationary spiral.

Warlordtrooper: "it will destroy jobs" is the number 2 dumbest reason to do or not do something ever. Jobs may be lost but other jobs get created. With higher profits from the improved efficiency the banks can reinvest it elsewhere creating jobs.


And why would they do that without demand? Right now, banks are borrowing at almost-zero from the Fed or from the few depositors they have, turning around and buying Treasuries at 0.5% because there's nothing new better than 0.5% to invest in. Saying "improved profits will lead to new reinvestments" is absurd.... consider what corporate profits have looked like in 2011-12. Massive profits. Continued layoffs. You're restating Say's Law. Which Keynes destroyed decades ago.

The world's biggest problem economically is that a billion Chinese people aren't consuming even half of their productive yield. The lower-level workers don't see a reasonable share of their labor. And, due to economic uncertainty, virtually no social safety net, even the gender imbalance, the Chinese, richer and poor alike, are saving, saving, saving, saving. Thus, leading to a global lack of commensurate consumption to the production of the world's factories and labor.
 
2012-11-24 08:38:48 PM
first the condom law in cali and now this. the porn industry is really taking a pounding.
 
2012-11-24 11:15:23 PM
Oh wow, these ATMs have caught up to Japan of 15 years ago.
 
2012-11-25 11:16:23 AM

CujoQuarrel: The ONLY solutions are to create more work for people to do (grow the economy) or shrink the population. Or both, I suppose. Right now we are suffering from an acute opposition to both of those goals. Weak economy and too many damn people.

Or just cut down on the number of people ....

 
2012-11-25 02:31:38 PM

BumpInTheNight: stratagos: LordZorch: Because we should all support spurious employment of people doing jobs that a chimp in a shirt can do...

Why do you hate America? Don't you understand how much the buggy whip industry contributes to the GDP?

Once a job is created it can never be destroyed, period. Unless you hate the Middle Class, that is.

/change "buggy whip" to "defense" if you're feeling smug, right wingers

Change "created" to "unionized" if you're feeling extra smug, left wingers.

/ugh, I hate replying to politard statements with other politard statements
//I'm going to take a shower


Awesome.
 
2012-11-25 09:17:50 PM

Lawnchair: The One True TheDavid:

Shrinking the population would help greatly

Again, genocide would further reduce demand. Which is the wrong direction in a deflationary spiral.


Not Econ 101, deep ecology. The effect of my proposed policies on the credit ratings of the 1% is beside the point.

Take, for example, large-scale cannibalism: the demand for non-human meat might lessen till the optimum population is reached, yet the supply of non-human meat would naturally shrink because the resources used to produce, process and deliver pig flesh would be used for something else instead. Say educating the children of those who are smart enough to keep themselves and their families from being eaten. And both eating stupid people and educating the presumably smart offspring of smart ones would improve our political system by allowing the surviving remnant to be free of the "judgment" of people who think Ann Coulter is a genius or that quoting The Simpsons qualifies as wit. It's a win-win situation: even those who get eaten will benefit by the cessation of their frustrating lives, as the rest of us will gain from a humongous bonanza of easy protein.

Besides, it's simply not fair that stupid people have to "outrank" smart pigs: a pig who's smart enough to hate his oppression should matter more than a human who thinks Obama is a Leninist and that "flag desecration" should be a felony.

We'll get to economic theory after we've culled the herd.
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report