Obama Takes Swipe at ATMs

SOS

ONA
Wackbag Staff
Aug 14, 2000
48,248
8,903
1,038
USA
#1
Fox News

And now some fresh pickings from the Political Grapevine...

Promise Kept?

President Obama campaigned on a promise to abolish the practice of rewarding special interest groups. But a new report questions whether that promise has been kept.

iWatch News says nearly 200 of the president's biggest donors have landed plum assignments, federal contracts worth millions or have attended elite White House events. The investigation found one third of Obama bundlers, those who raised anywhere from $50,000 to more $500,000 in campaign donations or their spouses joined the administration in some role.

iWatch notes the size of donations may have been a factor in bundlers getting a foot in the door -- quote -- "less than one in five at the $50,000 level got an administration position. Half of $200,000 bundlers were picked for some post; 80 percent of the $500,000 bundlers were appointed."

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said this during today's briefing:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The people who got those positions got them because of their credentials. They also happen to be donors in some cases. There are obviously numerous and far many more cases of people who weren't donors who were appointed the jobs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

This of course happens in other administrations. President Bush appointed about the same number of bundlers to administration jobs during his eight years that President Obama has appointed in two.

Rise of the Machines

President Obama also ruffled some feathers when he used ATMs and airport kiosks as reasons for rising unemployment. Here's what he said:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: A lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don't go to a bank teller or you go to the airport and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

The ATM Industry Association was quick to complain -- quote -- "ATMs today play a critical role in providing extensive employment in the ATM and cash-in-transit industries."

House Speaker Boehner's office even sent a joking e-mail out today from an automated teller machine saying "it" isn't to blame for the sluggish economy.
 

Pigdango

Silence, you mortal Fuck!
Donator
Jun 22, 2004
77,049
49,644
788
#2
The ATM Industry Association was quick to complain -- quote -- "ATMs today play a critical role in providing extensive employment in the ATM and cash-in-transit industries."
Yeah, but that doesn't change the fact that it only takes one or two people to manage 20-30 ATM machines, each of which makes the same number of transactions of 5-10 tellers. The ATM inudstry can go suck a dick with their oversensitivity.

I didn't see the President's quote in context, but if he really was blaming automation for unemployment, he's an even bigger dunce than I thought - Does he think Henry Ford invented the fucking assembly line last year or something? And for that matter, ATM's have existed for what - at least 10 - 15 years in their current proliferation. I'm pretty sure the banking industry has had time to react.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#3
I'm sure our state has nothing to with the massive spending and government intrusion into our lives. Nope. ATM machines.

Do bank tellers have a union? That works explain why Barry suddenly gives a shit about their lost jobs.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
79,196
27,688
898
Seattle
#4
I'm sure our state has nothing to with the massive spending and government intrusion into our lives. Nope. ATM machines.

Do bank tellers have a union? That works explain why Barry suddenly gives a shit about their lost jobs.
They have a credit union.
 

DoughBoy

Woogally Cute
Wackbag Staff
Jul 28, 2003
7,523
1
536
Jersey Shore
#6
I forget where it was, but I heard someone quoting the number of tellers the year prior to atms, then sometime between then and now they gave the number of atms, the number of people employed in making, selling, and maintaining atms along with the number of tellers.

The net of this is that saying that technology is dumb.
 

Fustercluck

Registered User
Jul 25, 2005
2,359
301
628
FEMA Region 9
#7
Haven't ATM machines been around for 25 years?
longer than that, i rememeber being like 4 or 5 and my mom getting money out of the magic machine. I think we had a tillie teller at least 30 years ago


found this: "First National Bank of Atlanta, a Wachovia predecessor, was concerned that the relatively new automated teller machine (ATM) it introduced in 1974 would appear cold and difficult to use."

that the one my mom used with the weird computer lady face on it.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#8
Haven't ATM machines been around for 25 years?
40 years. The inventor died last year and I remember posting a thread about it here.

I didn't see the President's quote in context, but if he really was blaming automation for unemployment, he's an even bigger dunce than I thought - Does he think Henry Ford invented the fucking assembly line last year or something? And for that matter, ATM's have existed for what - at least 10 - 15 years in their current proliferation. I'm pretty sure the banking industry has had time to react.
Here it is in context:

ANN CURRY (host, NBC's Today): You're here encouraging private sector hiring. This just after The New York Times just past -- this past Friday reported that since the recovery began, businesses have spent just 2 percent more on hiring people, while at the same time spending 26 percent more on equipment. So why, at a time when corporate America is enjoying record profits have you been unable to convince businesses to hire more people, Mr. President?

OBAMA: Well, I don't think it's a matter of me being unable to convince them to hire more people. They're making decisions based on what they think will be good for their companies. A couple of things have happened. Look, we went through the worst crisis since the Great Depression. We are now in a process where the economy is growing again, and we've created 2 million jobs over the last 15 months. But it's not as fast as it needs to be to make up for all the jobs that were lost.

The other thing that happened, though, and this goes to the point you were just making, is there are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM; you don't go to a bank teller. Or you go to the airport, and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate. So all these things have created changes in the economy, and what we have to do now -- and that's what this job council is all about -- is identifying where the jobs for the future are going to be; how do we make sure that there's a match between what people are getting trained for and the jobs that exist; how do we make sure that capital is flowing into those places with the greatest opportunity. We are on the right track. The key is figuring out how do we accelerate it."
[NBC, Today, 6/14/11]
So he didn't take a "swipe" at ATM manufacturers, just stated a fact. And it was a response to Ann's question about businesses "hiring" more machines than people. He's not calling for a ban on ATMs, just trying to "identify" where the jobs of the future may be. Disagree with his road to get there or his policies, but what he said was factually correct. Automation eliminates certain jobs and creates others. Some have net positive effects, some have net negative effects in terms of the number of "actual people" they employ, but everyone's lives are usually more improved for the better.

It's amazing how the right wingers have totally distorted this into some war on ATM manufacturers or banks. He even acknowledges that they're doing what they should be doing: Making whatever decisions they think are necessary for their businesses.

/and resume fauxrage....
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,646
8,816
693
Loveland, CO
#9
It's amazing how the right wingers have totally distorted this into some war on ATM manufacturers or banks. He even acknowledges that they're doing what they should be doing: Making whatever decisions they think are necessary for their businesses.

/and resume fauxrage....
Something's gotta come along to replace the outrage over dijon mustard, ipods as gifts and mom jeans
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
Apr 26, 2006
10,309
2,650
586
#10
There's what you think you know, and then there's reality.

ATMs And Automation
June 14, 2011 10:43 P.M.
By Jonah Goldberg

Barack Obama says that the bad economy isn’t his fault because of things like ATM machines:

“There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.”

Now I don’t think his idea is without merit. The technological revolutions of the last few decades and the challenges of globalization have changed the nature of our economy in significant ways. But I’m not sure how you can possibly blame ATMs. Aside from the myriad ways in which ATMs boost efficiency, liquidity, consumer spending (and don’t forget all of the jobs created for technicians and manufacturers of ATM machines), I’m not sure you can even blame a drop in bank teller jobs on bank machines. This is just a quick take, but just think about it for two seconds. The number of bank branches has soared in recent years. Those branches need human tellers (and bank machines). That’s why the BLS predicted that teller jobs would grow about 6% from 2008 to 2018 (it predicted other banking jobs would grow as well). That estimate may be lower now because of the recession, but that’s the recession’s fault — i.e. in Obama’s political wheelhouse — and not because of the “structural” issues Obama’s trying to pass the blame off to.

For instance, consider this:

At the dawn of the self-service banking age in 1985, for example, the United States had 60,000 automated teller machines and 485,000 bank tellers. In 2002, the United States had 352,000 ATMs – and 527,000 bank tellers.

Guess who was president in 2002.

Meanwhile, Obama does want to make some structural changes to the economy that will destroy very good paying jobs in the energy sector. If his clean energy-win-the-future-regulate-carbon proposals were implemented, it would throw vast numbers of people out of work in the coal, oil and gas industries. And there’s zero reason to believe that the “green jobs” he would replace them with would be better paying. And, we’d all pay more for more expensive energy, either as consumers or as taxpayers footing the bills for subsidies.

If you want to talk about job-killing structural issues, that’s a good place to start.
Red coloring for material quoted in the original text.

Thank you, Mr. President, for grasping basic economic realities. Or not.

Has everyone figured out that he doesn't know what he's doing? I seriously thought there was a chance that he could do something in office. Really. He gave a great speech, and if he was able to give enough of them he could possibly convince people that the economy was fine and turn things around.

He hasn't.

And in the end, that was his only chance at success. Because it's damn sure his policies won't do the job.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#11
So he didn't take a swipe at technology, he just proposed yet another government commission to study "job creation". That's sooo much better. :icon_roll
 

OilyJillFart

Well-Lubed Member
Sep 26, 2008
2,877
1,141
483
#12
It would have been more credible if he cited the automated store checkout systems.

Wouldn't have worked with the clever 'swipe' headline though. Maybe he could have scanned the situation.
 

Owenay

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed...
May 10, 2007
3,666
248
358
Bizarro World
#13
/and resume fauxrage....
Laughing when the POTUS says something we find ludicrous does not equate to 'fauxrage'. Keep overusing the meme though, before you know it it'll have as much credibility as accusations of racism do.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#14
There's what you think you know, and then there's reality.

Red coloring for material quoted in the original text.

Thank you, Mr. President, for grasping basic economic realities. Or not.
Speaking of reality, where exactly is he saying anything that's not true? Sure there are more bank tellers AND ATM machines, but how many more BANKS are there since 1985? Not only that, but there are ATM machines in places where putting up a bank would be impractical. A casino, a 7-11, a bar, an airport, etc.

And why is it so hard to grasp that the argument he's making is that it's made those businesses MORE efficient. His own words (I highlighted it in red for you):

Barack Obama said:
The other thing that happened, though, and this goes to the point you were just making, is there are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM; you don't go to a bank teller.
Laughing when the POTUS says something we find ludicrous does not equate to 'fauxrage'. Keep overusing the meme though, before you know it it'll have as much credibility as accusations of racism do.
Again, what is ludicrous is you twisting his words to find some bullshit meaning behind them. What's the part you disagree with that HE SPECIFICALLY SAID, not what some right-wing pundit spit back at you?
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#15
So what part of what Barry said isn't ludicrous and worthy of ridicule? The part where he takes no blame for the shit economy? The part where he wants to "study" some more? Or the part where he says this is just a temporary downturn?
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#16
So what part of what Barry said isn't ludicrous and worthy of ridicule? The part where he takes no blame for the shit economy? The part where he wants to "study" some more? Or the part where he says this is just a temporary downturn?
That's all a valid argument, I even mentioned that. The right wing spinning this as a War on ATMs is not.
 

Owenay

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed...
May 10, 2007
3,666
248
358
Bizarro World
#17
Again, what is ludicrous is you twisting his words to find some bullshit meaning behind them. What's the part you disagree with that HE SPECIFICALLY SAID, not what some right-wing pundit spit back at you?
He was asked, "why have you been unable to convince businesses to hire more people?"

He answered (in part), "a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM; you don't go to a bank teller. Or you go to the airport, and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.

Ergo, he's saying the reason he was unable to convince businesses to hire more people is (in part) because businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers (ie: ATM and airport kiosks).

How is that not clear?

That IS NOT IN ANY WAY the reason why he was unable to convince businesses to hire more people. It's nothing more than a very lame excuse and deflection from the question. The real reason why he is unable to convince businesses to hire more people has been well documented for the last 2 1/2 years on this very messageboard.

Not to mention your hyperbole about accusing right-wingers of seriously thinking Obama is declaring war on ATMs and trying to ban them is equally ludicrous.
 
Nov 29, 2006
3,452
374
523
FL
#19
Ass to mouth is pretty nasty, I agree with the president on this one.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#20
He was asked, "why have you been unable to convince businesses to hire more people?"

He answered (in part), "a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM; you don't go to a bank teller. Or you go to the airport, and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.

Ergo, he's saying the reason he was unable to convince businesses to hire more people is (in part) because businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers (ie: ATM and airport kiosks).

How is that not clear?
And how is that not a fact?

That IS NOT IN ANY WAY the reason why he was unable to convince businesses to hire more people. It's nothing more than a very lame excuse and deflection from the question. The real reason why he is unable to convince businesses to hire more people has been well documented for the last 2 1/2 years on this very messageboard.
A semi-deflection. He's trying to point out the challenges of a leaner, faster, smarter business climate. Making sure the capital investments are flowing into areas that take advantage of that. He admits that jobs haven't come back as much as they had "hoped."

And because of how cheap technology and manufacturing has become, and costs associated with hiring living-breathing-people have gone up, business are reacting to that and choosing technology over humans because it makes more fiscal sense. Again, who's going to argue that?

Not to mention your hyperbole about accusing right-wingers of seriously thinking Obama is declaring war on ATMs and trying to ban them is equally ludicrous.
I'm not the one who started a thread about Obama taking a "swipe" at ATMs. And do a Google search on it. It's all about how he somehow thinks ATMs are bad for business, when he was actually extolling their virtues by saying how they've made businesses more efficient. Why is that so hard to grasp?

I think they're taking more as an illustration of his ignorance than a "war" on ATMs.
Ignorance on what? That technological advances have made our workforce more efficient?
 

weeniewawa

it's a man, baby!!!
May 21, 2005
12,076
1,267
593
Hell,California
#21
He can knock all the automation he wants, his and other big government policies have driven away jobs by over regulating employers with too many mandates.

he doesn't understand that the only reason someone starts a business is to make a profit

not to be a caretaker of employees.

he just thinks they should just supply everything a worker needs for their life and worry about staying in business later.

and it seems whenever he goes to one of his supporters businesses to do some big hoopla about his achievements, that business closes soon after.

so apparently they are such big libs themselves and prove they do not know anything about running a business either
 

TheDrip

I'm bi-winning.
Jan 9, 2006
5,051
3
228
#22
Next thing you know, they're going to start doing shit like having people ring up their own items at grocery stores.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#23
Ignorance on what? That technological advances have made our workforce more efficient?
Ignorance on what creates jobs. Creating commissions to study how to make jobs does not make jobs. Bashing business every time someone puts a camera or microphone in front of him doesn't create jobs. Spending trillions of dollars we don't have doesn't create jobs.

Of course, he knows all this. The truth is he doesn't WANT to create jobs.
 

Sinn Fein

Infidel and White Interloper
Wackbag Staff
Aug 29, 2002
31,678
2,299
898
Florida's Nature Coast
#24
This just in...

Sarah Palin blames the invention of the VCR for the low employment numbers. She questions how we can reasonably expect everyone be able to get a job because now there are less movie theaters for people to work in due to the fact that people can watch movies at home.