[peebeebee]

In Belgium, most (big) banks are downscaling physical servicepoints so much it sometimes is almost impossible for people to choose to do business in person.

In think in 10 years you will have almost no real bank tellers anymore. That's no problem for most of the people, but I don't think that the right thing to do in the broader sense. There are lots of (technology) illiterate people that needs some kind of physical service.

[simsla]

In Belgium, I've noticed a general "de-servicing" across industries.

- Bank offices (and ATMs) disappearing. - Post offices disappearing. - Customer service disappearing (phone especially) in lieu of the always useless "check our frequently asked questions / forums" - Cashiers disappearing in lieu of self checkout.

I'm sure it's not just Belgium. The problem appears to be that there's no big enough incentive to service the long-tail (P90) once most day-to-day stuff can be done by yourself, usually digital. Service as collateral damage of efficiency.

Should we ask the government to ensure that any company providing critical services (banking, telecommunications, distributing food) offers a minimum level of service? Because without outside incentive I only see us going further down this road.

[imp0cat]

It's not just Belgium, it's everywhere now.

Though I must I admit I much prefer self-checkout when shopping. The queues are much faster.

[vetinari]

It is matter of organization.

There's a single queue to multiple self-checkout machines. If one is stuck, you won't notice.

For classic checkout, there are queues to cashier 1:1. If one is stuck, especially the one you are waiting in, you will definitely notice.

This, together with limiting the number of open classic checkouts, nudges you toward the self-checkout. KPIs then show, that they are popular and cheaper, so continue will rollout.

[walthamstow]

Technology illiteracy, absenting a learning difficulty or other mental condition, should be inexcusable in 2034 and we should not force the state or businesses to cope with it.

Part of me thinks it's inexcusable now for people under a certain age. If you're 70 today in a developed country, you've had the internet for 20 years and a smartphone for at least 10. That's plenty of time.

[arp242]

I think people should be able to live without internet, if that's what they choose. Just as people can live without a TV. There's tons of reasons why someone might not have internet (permanently or temporarily) ranging from financials to personal choice.

And it's not about "illiteracy" as far as I'm concerned, it's about wanting to talk to an actual human being, which is becoming harder and harder. My bank card doesn't work. No idea why. I went to the office: they told me they can't help me and to ring a number. I've rung that number a bunch of times: no one answers. I guess they're busy... I have a workaround by being able to transfer money to a friend's bank account (at the in-store kiosk, because internet banking also doesn't work) and withdrawing it from that, but pff...

And yes, I'll change banks when I can, but I'm not sure it really better anywhere else. Overall, adding more tech to these kind of things tends to make it worse once you're outside of the standard happy path. I also wasn't able to get one of those "COVID passport" thingies a few years ago: I moved back to my home country to get the vaccine, but then I wasn't registered correctly, so couldn't use the app, in spite of having the proof that I got when I got the shot. I was a teeny bit outside the "happy path" and ... sucks to be you.

There's tons of exceptional situations; someone might lose their phone and lose access to their bank account that way, and they may not have the money to buy a new phone right that minute. Simple fool-proof backup solutions are needed unless you're okay with excluding a lot of people (often people already in less-than-ideal circumstances – i.e. not the people typically posting here).

[walthamstow]

> I think people should be able to live without internet, if that's what they choose. Just as people can live without a TV.

Would you pass a law to force businesses to maintain a level of service that must include people without internet? It will have to be a law I'm afraid, if left to the profit motive alone then companies will not include these people, as we are seeing happen.

Also, I wouldn't liken living without internet to being without a TV, obviously I understand why you would say that, but when it comes to living in a modern society I'd say it's more like living without pen & paper or a postal service.

[arp242]

The only business that you need is a bank. They're subject to all sorts of special regulations already including the inability to refuse customers for a basic account in some countries. Other exceptions are things like the post office and such.

Special laws for a regular businesses isn't needed.

[frakkingcylons]

Having a physical presence is a competitive advantage. It's the reason some people stick with Chase or their local credit union in lieu of someone else who is online-only with a higher interest rate. Perhaps in a while most banks will decide it's just not worth the expense anymore, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion.

[vel0city]

I've never even been inside a brach of any bank I actually bank at. I've been in a bank to actually do banking like twice in my life, both times to get large bill withdrawals for in person cash vehicle purchases. And I'd just prefer there to be ATMs near me that support bills larger than 20s, why wait until the bank opens and stand in line.

I truly don't understand why a regular person would bother going in to a bank in-person. It just seems like a worse experience compared to doing your banking whenever, wherever.

I understand business banking and what not gets more complicated and it can be helpful having a team to talk to, but a normal person banking is almost always pretty dang basic.

[peebeebee]

That's why accessibility needs to be constantly advocated.

We should never design services only for the needs of the majority. There are lots of people with all kinds of disabilities -mental and physical- that we need to cater for.

That's what makes our society a better, more loving society.

[pbhjpbhj]

HSBC experience in a smaller UK city - the staff in branch have to call the same phone number as one would call from home. They do have some ability to authorise actions, but barely. Perhaps they checked ID, I don't recall.

The company line is "you don't need to visit the branch ever" which is strange as they keep having to ask us to do things at the branch.

There's no counter service, no business staff, nothing except people to intermediate using the machines or using phone banking.

[peebeebee]

That's ok. It's eating your own dogfood, and also "being there" for people that really need it. Much better than a robotmenu on a phone. :)

[tifik]

I agree that it would suck for tech non-savvy people, but at the same time the literacy of general population with any technology naturally improves as time passes. Of course, while there is still a big enough chunk of people that do need a require (or just prefer) a particular way of communicating, it should be generally available at a good-enough level of convenience. The key is of course to only start scaling it back at the appropriate time, at which there is so few people that they can be considered outliers (and I mean actual, statistical outliers, not 'whoever the government doesn't consider important enough').

But all of this is of course just like my opinion man. Just a very interesting topic to think about.