Fewer employees needed, less time needed, yet bigger fees

Discussion in Bank Accounts started by Lostvalleyguy • May 8, 2014.

  1. Lostvalleyguy

    LostvalleyguyActive Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Threads:
    168
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    14
    I am old enough to remember when people would get a paycheque from work and have to rush over to the bank to cash or deposit it if they needed the money. At that time the bank had to be larger, have more employees and a lot of the accounting was done manually. The teller would have to check the records to see if there was enough money in the account, if a check on a signature was needed, there was a filing cabinet or two full of cards. If you were at another branch of your own bank, you needed to wait endlessly for phone calls, checks and re checks to access your money. All of these things took time and effort on behalf of the banks and they were mainly done without fees.

    Now it seems that the easier it has become for the banks, the more fees they want to charge. How often do you really need to go up to a teller? If you are at a different branch, does it really cost a lot of money for the bank to allow you to withdraw from that machine as opposed to the one at your bank? (I am talking about the same bank just a different branch as there is a real accounting cost to using a different bank). The staff at the banks are now scarce and the banks are saving tons of money not having to pay them. Electronic accounting has replaced entire departments of staff and electronic records means far less space is needed to store the data.

    Do you think the banks really need to charge these fees? With all of the savings modern technology provides a bank, are they just asking us to accept this as part of the cost of living?