"Do Not Call" Means Poorest May Lose Jobs

Cato Institute ^ | various | Various

[LowCountryJoe]

According to The Los Angeles Times, "Last summer, the federal government announced a national registry for consumers who want to block telemarketers from calling them. Americans rushed to sign up.

"Of the nation's 166 million residential numbers, 51 million are now off-limits to telemarketers. Despite ongoing court challenges, the list went into effect last month.

"The crackdown might be welcomed by consumers, but not by telemarketers like Millican, many of whom survive on the economic fringe. The nation has lost 2.6 million jobs in two years, and the 'do not call' list is expected to put hundreds of thousands more people out of work."

In "Like It Or Not, Free Speech Protects Telemarketers, Too", Cato's Robert Levy, senior fellow in constitutional studies, argues that "when government sets the rules, it must not discriminate based on the content of the calls. That's what the First Amendment means. Free speech is not subject to plebiscite, no matter how many millions sign up for no-call. [Supreme Court] Justice William Brennan got it right: 'If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.'"

[LowCountryJoe]

I like your style, Palmer.

I'm guessing that I had a good response on this topic. Not bad for a troll.

[Sally'sConcerns]

You think it's selfish I don't want telemarketers calling me?

I am disabled and am in chronic pain. I don't sleep well at night and so must attempt to nap during the day. Invariably I am disturbed during my attempts at napping by people hawking things I don't want and don't want to hear about. Yes it bothers me to be disturbed when I just might be finally getting some rest. Rest for me means a little less physical pain.

I own my phones, I pay for the use of the phone line and you're telling me I'm selfish because I don't want telemarketers to call me using my money? Ah yes, I can always contract with the phone company to pay additional money to block what I never requested in the first place.

Yesterday evening I called SBC and threatened them with a lawsuit. About 6 weeks ago SBC started offering dsl service in my area. I was receiving phone calls every day and there were 3 days where I was called in the morning and afternoon. In response to 3 of those phone calls I requested they put me on their do not call list. On one of those calls the telemarketer wanted to get into a pi$$ing contest about who would hang the phone up first. For 2 weeks I didn't receive a call from SBC and then yesterday afternoon they woke me up again.

I again told the telemarketer to put me on their do not call list and I disconnected from the call. I then called SBC and told them to take me off of their call list. They started out telling me they'd make a note but I'd need to call another number to officially remove me. Oh, but I'd have to call today because their offices were closed at the time. I then threatened to sue them if I received one more call for SBC dsl. Finally they were willing to listen to me.

The funny thing about all of this is if they had left me alone I would have called SBC myself for dsl service because it's 15.00 cheaper than what I pay for cable modem.

[SamAdams76]

I do the same thing with my fax number. I put it on all forms that require it such as credit card applications, etc. That eliminates a lot of calls right there. Some stores have started asking for phone numbers which really tick me off. In those cases, I give them my work number so that I can really go off on them if they call there. Also, some stores (like Trader Joe's) now ask for your zip code, which apparently they use to target their flyers. In that case, I give them various zipcodes from rural Alabama (where most of my family lives). There must be a lot of head-scratching going on as these stores try to figure out why all these customers from Alabama are doing their shopping in Massachusetts.

I have caller ID and I never pick up the phone if the number is blocked (all telemarketers block their calls). I tell friends and family to unblock their number if they want to talk to me. Otherwise they have to rely on me checking my answering machine - another thing I'm not too fond of doing.

[bk1000]

'You haven't paid for solicitation-free service'

I have never heard of this. I even have a problem watching
commercials on pay TV, or at a movie I paid to enter. I think it is different with TMs. The caller ID is hidden, because they know you won't answer, then that annoying silence waiting on the auto dial back sends me through the roof. It was fun now and then to tease them, but even that got old. I'll have to say this: the list works! I have gone from 5-6 calls a day to none. The unfortunate part is that now I realize just how unpopular I am!

[Held_to_Ransom]

Twisting this into an employment issue won't help - these people aren't productive members of society.

What world is it you live where big companies spend their day operating as charities? Jobs will be lost, and in my state alone over 20 billion dollars a year in business was telemarketing sourced. Times that by 50. It won't be that big, but Bush may well regret he signed that thing come the next election. Even if the economy does well, he may say, wow, it could have soared. Well, that was his call. We shall see.

[meyer]

No, harassment is when someone harasses you, not when you think they might.

Yep - and if they call after I specifically register my desire to not be called, they are harassing. It matters not whether I specify my desire to each annoying telemarketer individually (as you suggested in your previous post) or if I do it in a more efficient manner through an enforced list.

[Modernman]

Jobs will be lost, and in my state alone over 20 billion dollars a year in business was telemarketing sourced. Times that by 50.

The money spent by corporations for telemarketing will be shifted into other types of marketing- like radio or tv ads, billboards, direct-mail campaigns etc. The money won't just disappear into the aether.

[meyer]

That's correct. The marketplace does it already and could do it even better if the states allowed local service competition.

The marketplace doesn't do it effectively - otherwise, you wouldn't see the huge public outcry. The only market solution I can see is if people were allowed to bill for their phone time at will without having to jump through all the red tape that constitutes becoming a business.

If someone trespasses on your property, you have legal recourse. That cannot be done when they trespass on your own phone line. The do-not-call list corrects that wrong in an efficient manner.

[myrabach]

If they don't produce anything, then they are by definition "non-productive".

Actually they produce [generate] huge amounts of sales for the companies they represent. How long does it take any of you to figure out how lucrative this business is? Millions of people purchase from telemarketers... check out the annual reports of these companies.

"My gosh - what did this country do before the huge proliferation of telemarketers? I mean, what did young people do to make a buck or two?"

I could actually give you quite a list of things young people did before telemarketing... ushers at movie theatres, pumping gas and cleaning windshields at gas stations, carrying groceries home from supermarkets in wagons, summer jobs at US Steel that more than paid for college so parents did not need to second mortgage the house, etc. Lots of things that aren't around any more.

Just because people can do other jobs doesn't mean that telemarketing wasn't a decent position for some people. Suppose they would like to have another choice than slinging burgers at Mickey D's? You find them annoying, but they are employed people, young, middle-aged, and elderly... all making a buck and spending a buck... paying taxes... contributing to our capitalistic society.

[palmer]

There are marketplace solutions already, my cell phone company doesn't allow its block of numbers to be autodialed. There would be far more solutions if local service were deregulated (including wireless). Then you would simply sign up for a service that offered to block commercial calls or whatever calls you did not want.

[palmer]

Yeah, not bad for a troll! The same topic would have gotten you banned a few months ago, if you chose the wrong side. And in a few months you can post about the layoffs and maybe half a dozen people will express their contentment with big government and quiet dinners.

[maineman]

Many goods and services are purchased through telemarketers a year...to the tune of multi millions. I find it hard to believe that people are so busy that they can't tell a telemarketer (maybe 2-3 times a week) that they are not interested. I have purchased many goods and services through this outlet, and have saved alot of money vs. retail stores. I want to thank all the telemarketers I've done business with that I appreciate them.

[meyer]

What world is it you live where big companies spend their day operating as charities? Jobs will be lost, and in my state alone over 20 billion dollars a year in business was telemarketing sourced. Times that by 50. It won't be that big, but Bush may well regret he signed that thing come the next election. Even if the economy does well, he may say, wow, it could have soared. Well, that was his call. We shall see.

What world do you live in that you expect me to suffer so that these annoying folks can stay employed? If they don't do something that society wants, they ought to find other work. And society has spoken loud on this one - we the people who have been rendered powerless to police the trespassers on our own phone equipment are asking the government to help us.

If this has any effect on Bush's re-election, it will undoubtedly be positive as people remember the nearly unbearable barrage of phone calls that they used to get before the federal list was started. There's a whole lot more voters in favor of this than against it.

[Taliesan]

The people who put themselves on the do not call list are the people who would hang up on the telemarketer anyway. So little, if any sales will be lost to the customers of the marketers, and the telemarketers costs should go down and yields go up as the law weeds out their worst sales prospects.

[meyer]

Actually they produce [generate] huge amounts of sales for the companies they represent. How long does it take any of you to figure out how lucrative this business is? Millions of people purchase from telemarketers... check out the annual reports of these companies.

We don't call that productive where I work, but I'll accept your definition. Nevertheless, its pretty telling that you would support the practice of using people's private telephone to exercise deceptive and coercive selling practices on people that just don't want to be bothered.

I honestly don't give a flying rat's backside what the annual report of these companies say. They are a public nuisance. I suppose that thieves and robbers have quite an impressive annual report as well. They also are a public nuisance. Both tend to separate people from their hard earned cash and generally give that person nothing of value in return.

I could actually give you quite a list of things young people did before telemarketing... ushers at movie theatres, pumping gas and cleaning windshields at gas stations, carrying groceries home from supermarkets in wagons, summer jobs at US Steel that more than paid for college so parents did not need to second mortgage the house, etc. Lots of things that aren't around any more.

There's a whole want-ad section in the sunday paper that is full of jobs that need filling. Most of these jobs don't involve harassing people in their homes.

Just because people can do other jobs doesn't mean that telemarketing wasn't a decent position for some people. Suppose they would like to have another choice than slinging burgers at Mickey D's? You find them annoying, but they are employed people, young, middle-aged, and elderly... all making a buck and spending a buck... paying taxes... contributing to our capitalistic society.

Hit-men are employed people too, as are drug runners. But both share a common thread with the telemarketer - they are a burden on the innocent people that want nothing better than to have peace and quiet in their own homes. I don't desire to contribute to the employment of any of those groups.

[Held_to_Ransom]

The money spent by corporations for telemarketing will be shifted into other types of marketing- like radio or tv ads, billboards, direct-mail campaigns etc

No need to hire people for that. No new redio jocks will be hired to read ads. No reason to think more ads will be made, they will just be played more often. Direct mail is highly automated. The machines will run a little longer, that's all. True the money won't just disappear, but a lot of businesses whose products are best suited to telemarketing (there is crap, but there also are excellent products that don't sell well with other means) will definitely suffer. I sold a lot of high quality products in direct sales where telemarketing played a key role in getting appointments, and a very large percentage of the higly satisfied customers all said the same thing at the beginning. They said 'I don't want it,' 'I'm not interested,' and 'don't call me again.'

For myself, I do insurance now. It's exempted. What's your number fool?

[Mad Dawgg]

'"Do Not Call" Means Poorest May Lose Jobs'

Women, Minorities and Crippled Children hit hardest, Democrats want to know what Bush knew and when did he know it.

In a related story John Kerry is rumored to be a Viet Nam Vet, and Tom Daschle is deeply saddened.

Developing...

[Held_to_Ransom]

What world do you live in that you expect me to suffer so that these annoying folks can stay employed? If they don't do something that society wants, they ought to find other work. And society has spoken loud on this one - we the people who have been rendered powerless to police the trespassers on our own phone equipment are asking the government to help us.

Actually, what most people like to do most is bitch and moan. What are you gonna do that about next now that TM is gone?

As for asking the government to help you, I have no symphathy for Democrats, or people who think they aren't Democrats.

If this has any effect on Bush's re-election, it will undoubtedly be positive as people remember the nearly unbearable barrage of phone calls that they used to get before the federal list was started. There's a whole lot more voters in favor of this than against it.

Unbearable barrage of phone calls? Wow. Did you wilt? Shrink? Turn pale and have a heart attack? Did you just hide in the closet and cry?

The more you depend on government to do things for you, the less freedom you will have. All you did was make government bigger and assist large corporations in stepping on small independent businessmen. You sir, are no American.

[tx_eggman]

I'm overjoyed that you, LowCountryJoe, and Indy Pendance found each other on this thread ... my heart is all a flutter thinking about your future together.

You sure as hell deserve one another.

[Redcloak]

Yours is exactly the correct answer. A telemarketer's "free speech" does not entitle him to use services paid for by others. This is in stark contrast to producers of junk mail. The postage they pay supports the postal system; they are using what they help to pay for. Those who receive the junk mail do not pay to get it. It's arrives entirely paid for by the sender. A phone call is different. I have to pay each month to keep the line connected. A telemarketer is thus using a line I paid for when he calls. Quite simply, I don't want to pay for his business expenses. He has the right to market his goods or services, but there is no right to have that advertising delivered with another's resources.