← Risk register SOC 43-3071 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Tellers

329,480 US workers · median $43,030/yr · Office

COOKED

The teller's core loop — accepting deposits, cashing checks, verifying identity, balancing a cash drawer, answering balance and fee questions — has been under attack by ATMs, deposit-capture apps, and chat agents for two decades, and generative AI finishes the job on the conversational and paperwork side. What remains is physical cash and coin handling in a branch plus the in-person reassurance older and small-business customers pay for, which is real but supports far fewer positions per branch. Modal work is procedural with no licensure and little discretion; branch consolidation, not sudden task replacement, is the mechanism of decline.

10-year outlook: Expect continued double-digit percentage decline through the early 2030s as branches consolidate; the tellers who keep working will have retitled into universal banker, fraud-interdiction, or branch operations roles.

US employment, 2019–2025-25.5%
442,120329,480 workers

Part 2020 shock, part continued decline in the years since.

Median pay $31,230 → $43,030 +10.2% in real terms (nominal +37.8%, less ~25% US inflation over the period)

The job count is not the verdict

This line is counted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics — the one figure on this page that isn't a judgement of ours. Headcount moves on demand, offshoring, demographics and the business cycle, and automation is one term among several, often not the loudest.

So a falling line is not evidence that AI did it, and a rising one is not evidence that it won't. Both happen in this register: some occupations resist automation and shrink anyway, others are highly automatable and keep growing. The marked year is 2020.

BLS projection, 2024–2034

-12.9% 347,400 → 302,500 on the projections basis

Exposed, and shrinking

Both signals point the same way: the tasks are largely automatable and the BLS projects -12.9% by 2034. This is the case where the score and the forecast agree, and it is the one worth taking seriously.

Different clocks. The score is what current AI could do to this work today. The projection is how many of these jobs will exist in 2034. Everything between the two — how fast employers actually adopt, whether demand grows in the meantime — is why they can point opposite ways without either being wrong.

~29,800 openings a year on average, including replacing people who leave.

One email if this score changes. Watch as many occupations as you like from the same address — no account, and nothing is sent on a schedule, only when a verdict actually moves.

Also known as — 24 job titles this covers

Titles reported by people doing this work, from the US Department of Labor's O*NET survey. If your job title is here, this page is about your work even though the name doesn't match.

BankerTellerCashierBank TellerLoan TellerMail TellerNote TellerCoupon ClerkVault TellerBranch TellerMoney CounterPaying TellerRetail BankerRoving TellerExchange ClerkOn-call TellerSavings TellerUtility TellerDrive-in TellerExchange TellerPersonal BankerBilingual TellerFinancial TellerReceiving Teller

Score — 23/100 resistance

Holding it up: embodiment (7/20). Weakest point: liability shield (1/20).

Five dimensions, 0–20 each, summed. Higher means more protected. The arithmetic is shown so you can check it: 5 + 7 + 1 + 7 + 3 = 23. · Scored 2026-08-11, and re-examined when evidence accumulates rather than on a schedule.

Task resistance 5/20

Core tasks are already automatable Deposit acceptance, check cashing, balance inquiries, and drawer-balancing are already executed end-to-end by ATMs, remote deposit capture, and interactive teller machines — the 5 rather than 0 reflects only cash recycling exceptions, coin and currency straps, and safe-deposit box access that still route through a person.

Embodiment 7/20

Some physical or field component You physically count and strap currency, load and clear the cash recycler, escort customers to safe deposit boxes, and handle night-drop bags — but all of it happens inside a climate-controlled branch behind a counter, which is why this is a 7 and not the 13+ of field work.

Liability shield 1/20

No licence, no signature requirement No licence or certification gates the teller window; BSA/AML training and the CTR/SAR filing you initiate are institutional obligations that the bank and its compliance officer answer for, and the FDIC examines the bank, not you.

Trust premium 7/20

Some relationship component Regulars who ask for you by name, know your kids, and won't use the ATM are real value, but the bank routes them to whoever is open, transfers you between branches, and treats you as interchangeable at the teller line — relationship revenue lives with the personal banker and branch manager, not the 7 here.

Judgment & accountability 3/20

Executes defined procedures on defined inputs Your discretion caps out at hold decisions within a posted schedule, override thresholds you must escalate above, and flagging a structuring pattern to compliance — the dollar limits, ID requirements, and referral scripts are written down before you arrive.

Scored twice. An independent second run returned 26/100 — COOKED, agreeing with the verdict above.

This occupation has already been through one. Headcount fell 32.9% between 2017 and 2025 — 491,150 to 329,480 — while the median wage held roughly flat in real terms (+ 17.4% after inflation). A job being commoditised usually loses pay along with headcount. One that shrinks by half while pay holds is leaving a specialist core behind, and the score above was assigned from the occupation title without sight of that history — so it may be describing the job this used to be rather than the people still doing it. Why this is a known limit.

Confidence: high · reviewed 2026-08-11 · how scoring works

What this job involves — and which parts are yours

The verdict above describes this occupation as a whole. Almost nobody does the typical version of a job — tick what's actually in your week and see how your own mix sits.

AI already does these at usable quality

These still need a person

Active moats on the surviving side: physical-presence, trust

How to future-proof this job

Training paths for your skill gaps: Khan Academy — reading and vocabulary, all levels, free free · Coursera — critical thinking and logic, audit free free to audit · Toastmasters — public speaking practice at local clubs worldwide low · Learning How to Learn — the most-taken course on Coursera, and free free to audit

All 35 skills ranked by how many jobs they open →

Where this experience transfers — occupations you could move toward

Computed from U.S. Dept. of Labor O*NET skill and knowledge profiles: high overlap with what you already do, a materially higher resistance score, no large jump in required training, and no licence you would have to start a new pipeline to get. Targets that pay meaningfully less, that are themselves COOKED, or whose own headcount is falling are excluded — a move into a shrinking trade is not an escape.

Tax Examiners and Collectors, and Revenue Agents EXPOSED · 34/100 · you already have ~67% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Reading Comprehension, Critical Thinking, Speaking, Learning Strategies

What would move this back up — beyond any one person

The moves above are yours to make. This is the other half: what would have to change in the world for the occupation itself to score higher. None of it is in any one person's gift, but it is where the floor actually comes from. Scores here are not a one-way ratchet. Only two of the five dimensions — task resistance and embodiment — track what machines can do. The other three track law, what buyers will pay for, and who is answerable, and those move in both directions, often in response to the same pressure AI creates. If every lever below landed, this occupation would score around 35/100 — EXPOSED.

4 specific changes that would raise this score
  • already happening task resistance +4

    Task-mix shift is genuinely available here: as deposits and balance queries move to apps, the residual in-branch loop becomes fraud interdiction — elder financial exploitation holds, scam-in-progress interruption, forged-endorsement catches. Several states (e.g. under NASAA's model act, adopted in 30+ states) already authorize or require frontline staff to place holds on suspected exploitation. If banks formally reclassify the role toward fraud-prevention specialist, the remaining day is judgment-tier.

  • already happening embodiment +1

    Physical cash and coin volume is the durable floor: vault balancing, counterfeit detection by feel, coin/currency ordering for small businesses, safe-deposit box dual-control access. This does not rise on its own, but a US retreat from cashless trend (state cash-mandate laws) preserves the existing 7 rather than eroding it.

  • plausible judgment accountability +4

    Same NASAA/state elder-exploitation statutes give the employee discretion to delay a disbursement — a consequential call under ambiguity with safe-harbor protection. If banks document and audit teller-initiated holds as an owned decision rather than an escalation, this rises.

  • plausible liability shield +3

    Bank Secrecy Act / FinCEN enforcement trend requiring a named human employee to observe and attest in-person cash transactions — e.g. CTR filing and SAR-triggering behavioral observation for cash over $10,000, plus state cash-access laws (San Francisco, NJ, NYC) mandating branches accept cash. If a rule made human attestation of large-cash origin non-delegable to a kiosk, teller-level sign-off gains a thin statutory floor.

The limit. No realistic route to a meaningful trust premium: buyers do not choose a bank for its tellers, and branch consolidation is driven by real-estate economics, not task capability. Even with every lever, headcount per branch keeps falling — the levers protect the character of surviving roles, not their number.

These are conditions, not forecasts — what would have to happen, not what will. Specific rules, cases and bills are named so you can go and check whether they exist and where they stand; verify before relying on any of them. Nothing here is legal or financial advice.

Where this work is, and what it pays there

BLS metro figures for 391 areas. The verdict above does not change by city — the rubric judges what the work involves, not where it happens — but pay and headcount do, and the national median hides a very wide range.

Most of these jobs

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ 15,820 $47,230 +10%
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN 9,930 $44,540 +4%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 8,790 $46,350 +8%
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 6,010 $39,270 -9%
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 6,010 $45,130 +5%
Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX 5,760 $45,090 +5%
Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI 5,130 $45,110 +5%
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH 4,820 $47,520 +10%

Best paid

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 1,030 $50,090 +16%
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 3,730 $49,880 +16%
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 2,810 $49,370 +15%

Percentages are against this occupation's national median of $43,030. Counts are jobs in that metro, not vacancies. Metros where the BLS suppressed the cell are absent rather than shown as zero.

Who is actually doing this

The score above is about what the work exposes. This is reporting about real deployments in this occupation — the difference between "could be automated" and "somebody automated it."

Ibex 35 banks

1 of 1 reported case, with sources

Quick take — do you do this job?

Has AI actually changed your work? One tap, anonymous, and the running tally is public. Nothing else is asked of you.

Self-reported and unverified — a sentiment signal, not a survey. One response per person per occupation; you can change your answer.

Field reports — what people say has changed

No field reports yet. A written account takes a paragraph rather than a tap, goes to an editor before it appears, and is the one thing on this page the rubric cannot produce on its own.

File a field report

Concrete beats general: a tool that arrived, a task that moved, a headcount decision you watched happen. Don't include anything that identifies you or your employer if that would put you at risk.

Watch this verdict
Kept current

Rather than check back: get the digest and we'll tell you what changed — or watch a single occupation from its own page.