"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.'"

[The Clemson Tiger]

I pay for your entitlement

Nope, you pay for your own. Hence no entitlement. If you prefer not to avail yourself of it, that's your choice.

but you and millions of other people lobbied to make me.

that's called democracy.

[palmer]

A local regulation to discourage strangers from commercial speech and physical trespassing is a lot more acceptable to me than federal regulations to regulate calls that may include political speech.

[Let's Roll]

Right, 50 million Americans are going to disconnect or pay to be left alone either of which would put the minimum wagers out of work anyway. Isn't that some sort of extortion? Would we have a "case" then?

[bluejean]

"Our selfish attitudes lead us to use this Do Not Call registry because God forbid we might be 'bothered'"

Oh, I get it. It's just fine for the harassER to be utterly selfish by barging into MY personal time at MY home, making me get up, answer the phone, so I can walk away wanting to tell this irritating twit to go to hell. But it's not okay for ME, the harassEE, to have some peace and quiet in MY home after MY long day at work doing a real job. As usual (and isn't this classic liberal philosophy?) it's okay for people to inflict themselves on people minding their own business, but people who want the freedom to CHOOSE not to be harrassed by these whining adult juvenile delinquents (democrats, liberals, socialists, communists, PETA disciples, Saddam sycophants, 'social justice' dweebs (Did You Hug Your Telemarketer Today?), etc.) are somehow 'selfish', yegods, absolute criminals...

WhatEVAR.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

American industry never seems to learn this basic lesson: either regulate yourself, or government will end up doing it for you. The second alternative always ends up being worse for the industry

Extremely well put.

[palmer]

This kind of "democracy" is like voting for more bread and circuses. All consumers and payers of unemployment tax are going to pay for this.

[palmer]

That's acceptable. If the state government allowed more local competition, you would likely have service choices that included no solicitations for no extra charge.

[The Clemson Tiger]

This kind of "democracy" is like voting for more bread and circuses.

Oh, please.

I'm movin' on now...good luck workin' on those debating skills.

[blackie]

*Pity.*

[aculeus]

Boo hoo!

[LowCountryJoe]

Look, I'm not a telemarketer. But you bring up a very good point about the nature of that business and how they're predatory. I just worry that this will lead to even more protections provided by our government. I'll repeat myself on this one: There are free market solutions for everything and even if they hadn't been created yet, they would have been or will be. I can't name all the technology out there that does the job or even if it works but in the mean time, there are things one could do in order not to be disturbed. Ignorance should not be an excuse to create legislation that takes away our FREEDOMS.

[meyer]

I don't like telemarketers any more than anyone else. However, saying that these people are not productive members of society is crass and baseless.

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

Vast numbers of telemarketing employees are young people working while attending college, single moms doing the best they can, second-job people supporting themselves while they work up the success ladder, supplemental income to retirees, etc.

Vast numbers of illegal aliens are holding jobs all over the country illegally. Perhaps these ex-telemarketers can take up positions and send the illegals packing. Or, they can apply at all of the McDonalds and KFC's around here that always have a help wanted sign out.

The loss of this kind of employment will greatly impact the lives of those above. And its those low end workers who will be impacted the most. The telemarkting companies... well yep, you guessed it... they are taking the business to Canada and overseas. One market closes, another opens up!

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?

[Oztrich Boy]

3) Can you imagine being a telemarketer

NO they're scum

2) That politician's shortsighted behavior could lead to further legislation protecting us 'dependent' citizens from the e-mail, snail mail, and billboard advertising that we somehow, by ourselves, can not suppress the influence of.

Nothing to do with not being able to supress the influence of.

e-mail: I chose when to log on and delete unread any spam that sneaks past the filters: minor inconvenience

snail mail: I choose when to go to my post box. The trash bin is between the box and the house: Minor inconvenience to dump unread.

Billboard: don't read.

Telemarketers: They insist I answer the phone when they ring, whatever I was doing at the time. This is a major inconvenience as it is *never* at a time convenient to me. For telemarketer calls there is *no* convenient time.

And did I mention that telemarketers were scum.

[sirchtruth]

Look, you people must be getting swamped with these calls! I get maybe two or three a week. I actually have fun telling TM's to go pound sand especially after I've said NO to them and they keep on trying.

I really was looking at it as reducing the opportunity for these people to make a decent living by limiting free speech, however after reading some of these post and juding the way some of you look at it, I am slowing changing my thinking.

OMG, I might be wrong!!!

BTW, I love the blowhorn idea!

[palmer]

Don't let the facts hit you on the way out!

[Constantine XIII]

Wow, good point!

[Let's Roll]

Having looked at palmer's home page, I now understand that this topic isn't the only one he is irrational on.

[Gargantua]

Then factor in all the people employed making products or providing services sold by those telemarketers.

Add in the truckers who once delivered those products, the stockroom boys who loaded those trucks and filled those shelves with products now not being sold by those telemarketers.

Take away from the economy the sale all those millions of taxable gallons of truck fuel, all those millions of taxable hours of phone calls, and the economic ripple effect thoughout our market economy might well exceeed the "value" realized by a few people too lazy to get off their fat asses and answer their telephone.

[Modernman]

A local regulation to discourage strangers from commercial speech and physical trespassing is a lot more acceptable to me than federal regulations to regulate calls that may include political speech.

Political fundraising is exempt from the do-not-call list, as are charities.

[meyer]

I pay for my phonelines, I value my time at home. If telemarketers want to pay me for my phone and my time (and it would cost a lost, let me tell you) then they are free to call and chat.

That would be the best solution - just let us mortals charge for our time and equipment.

I'm $75 per hour, 1 hour minimum. Any takers?