> why didn’t ATMs reduce the number of bank branches
At least in the UK, the number of branches has halved in 30 years:
"Over the past three decades, the number of bank branches has fallen steadily. In 1986
there were 21,643 bank or building society branches in the UK. In 2014 there were
10,565. Over this period, the total number of bank and building society branches fell by 11,078 or 51%."
For me, for the last 15 years, it's less than twice per year, possibly even less than once per year.
I used to have cheques to pay in from my grandparents (birthday etc), although I think I usually posted them to the bank. Postage was free. Presumably the in-branch bank tellers have better things to do than process cheques.
There were a few visits when I emigrated to close and open accounts. Much of this could be done by phone, but I had some old accounts from childhood which I'd never used online.
It's not at all surprising to me that the nearest bank to where my parents live in England is only open three days a week, with the ones that used to be nearer long since closed.
What do you use checks for? My rent comes out of my bank account, I bought my car with zero down so I didn't need a check then, and everything else goes on my credit card. Thus, I've never written an actual check in my life.
At least in the UK, the number of branches has halved in 30 years:
"Over the past three decades, the number of bank branches has fallen steadily. In 1986 there were 21,643 bank or building society branches in the UK. In 2014 there were 10,565. Over this period, the total number of bank and building society branches fell by 11,078 or 51%."
Did this not happen in the USA?
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8...