"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.'"

[Petronski]

Would you all sign off! I'm tryin' to CALL you!!!!

DSL, baby!

[Indy Pendance]

Like you, we police ourselves. Maybe that's why we aren't hassled all that much. But, unlike you, I won't sign up for a government list. History has proven, in the wrong hands, a good thing can and will be abused. I have more of an issue with junk mail. I get 6-8 credit card applications per day. I've mistakenly thrown away important bills thinking they were junk mail. But, you know the government will not regulate themselves wrt mail. I said earlier, if the government collected taxes per phone call, there would not be a no call list.

[palmer]

non-government, freedom-loving types

LOL! You requested a government mandate to a phone service that only includes calls you want without having to pay extra for any blocking services. How is that non-government?

[Indy Pendance]

Cable modem......

[Petronski]

Taxes per call placed? That would be a pretty good disincentive, including a disincentive for legitimate business calls between willing and expectant economic players. Put it this way: will you pay my outgoing call tax? If I can get a bonded agreement from you to pay my outgoing-call tax for the next five years, I'll gladly endorse your suggestion.

[palmer]

Here's a hint: crank calls (unsolicited and useless nuisance calls) have been illegal for decades. 'Telemarketing' is no different.

You have stretched the definition of "crank" and placed it in the hands of Federal bureaucrats who will stretch it some more. Like people who insist they are being "harassed" by telemarketers, the serious cases that should be prosecuted will get trivialized by the barrage of normal usage cases, vindictive customers, etc.

[Indy Pendance]

No, I was thinking more of a usage tax per call, per customer. The government would never agree to stop their flow of revenue by endorsing a do not call list in that instance. I'll bet it was suggested though. I don't think it would sway telemarketers from operating, it would be part of their normal operating costs, and would adjust that cost to the end user.

[Slings and Arrows]

I think you may have mistaken me for someone who regards telemarketers as human beings. You might wish to reread my post #258.

[myrabach]

"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"

Since when do hit men and drug runners pay taxes?

Why don't you separate the company from the employees? In my original post I stated that I did not support telemarketing as a fun enterprise, but that it was insulting to say that the employees of said companies were non-productive citizens.

Personally, I get maybe one or two telemarketing calls a week because I have taken the time to ask to be put on a do not call list.

But this is a lucrative business for the owners of said companies... even more lucrative for the agent who matches up a client with a telemarketing company. The money in this industry is astounding, and the money is there simply because people answer their phone and purchase the merchandise. You may personally be annoyed and most of the people here may be annoyed with the phone intrustion. But enough people are not annoyed to make at least one telemarketing company on the list of Fortune 100...

[Held_to_Ransom]

From experience in the industry, the bulk of telemarketers are the bottom of the market. Lots of inner urban types, may with criminal records, and a surprising number of widows who can't work all day on their feet. The widows won't fit the streets to commit crimes, but I wouldn't be so sure about many of the rest. At least when they were working you knew where they were, and the were collecting a thin check.

What's even more ironic is that the industry practically ran on the Federal employer's tax credit for hiring welfare moms and ex-offenders. What the Feds give, the Feds taketh away. At least, perhaps, until the next election. Most of those people live in the neighborhoods where the Dems focus there efforts to get out the vote, and most of these folks will likely be home on election day instead of working.

[Held_to_Ransom]

From experience in the industry, the bulk of telemarketers are the bottom of the market. Lots of inner urban types, may with criminal records, and a surprising number of widows who can't work all day on their feet. The widows won't hit the streets to commit crimes, but I wouldn't be so sure about many of the rest. At least when they were working you knew where they were, and the were collecting a thin check.

What's even more ironic is that the industry practically ran on the Federal employer's tax credit for hiring welfare moms and ex-offenders. What the Feds give, the Feds taketh away. At least, perhaps, until the next election. Most of those people live in the neighborhoods where the Dems focus there efforts to get out the vote, and most of these folks will likely be home on election day instead of working.

[HighWheeler]

I figured you as a telemarketer-lover would not see the comma, which created two not-necessarily mutually exclusive "types" of people.

These included non-government types, and freedom loving types, which distinguished your allowance that only government types could decide what was harrassment (in which, BTW, you simultaneouly took out your entire argument against having government invoking the Do Not Call list as a form of harassment prevention, by saying that other forms of harassment could be protected by government).

I hope you see the hyper-hypocrisy in your claim "That is harassment, I think local government can reasonably judge and enforce those [other] cases [of harassment]."

Your trouble is in defining harassment. Harassment is in the judgement of the harassed, tempered by the collective judgement of society.

Plenty of people don't like your harassment. The collective judgement of society - a government of the people, by the people, and for the people - hates your feakin' guts.

[Petronski]

You have stretched the definition of "crank" and placed it in the hands of Federal bureaucrats who will stretch it some more.

First, I don't see any stretching.

Secondly, any stretching that might have occurred is not mine, but that of 50 million FDNC list participants.

Finally, what is the endgame risk here? Which unsolicited calls that I want to receive will Federal bureaucrats prevent me from receiving?

[Slings and Arrows]

P.S. To my last post: Sorry, think I misunderstood you. I do have a suggestion for employing displaced telemarketers in post #248.

[Petronski]

No, I was thinking more of a usage tax per call, per customer.

That's an attempt to ransom my peace and quiet: the bastards can call me unless I pay a Federal fee? I thought you were trying to avoid unnecessary Federal intervention...

[palmer]

Harassment is in the judgement of the harassed, tempered by the collective judgement of society.

Interesting that the "harassed" and the "society" are one and the same. Many people don't like calls from their mothers-in-law. I prefer tempering based on facts rather than the feelings of the same mob. One fact is that you signed up for so-called "harassment". That alone discredits the claim.

[palmer]

Finally, what is the endgame risk here? Which unsolicited calls that I want to receive will Federal bureaucrats prevent me from receiving?

There are many possible problems. One I can think of is that the bureaucrats decide that anyone not from a "major" party cannot be allowed to make protected "political" calls. An example would be libertarians calling to ask me for money.

[Petronski]

One I can think of is that the bureaucrats decide that anyone not from a "major" party cannot be allowed to make protected "political" calls.

Unconstitutional, all the way back to the Federalist papers, IIRC.

[Indy Pendance]

Sorry, I'm not making myself clear. A tax on the user, a usage tax. You would be charged, for example, 3 cents per call, payable to the government, of course, automatically included in your phone bill, kind of like everything else.

[palmer]

And how do you propose to prevent the bureaucrats from doing it? You've already allowed an exception to the Constitution by allowing them to restrict commerce (the commerce clause intent is to expand commerce by overruling state laws).