"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]

...and there's nothing you can do about it.

I know you love trumpeting that theory, but some form of Do-not-call is going to survive court scrutiny...meaning there is plenty we can do about it.

[PFKEY]

I find this hard to believe. The telemarketing industry should be pleased with the do not call list. These 51 million numbers where not productive.

Now they can increase their productivity.

[harpo11]

Really? How is it they make a living using my telephone which I pay for directly plus multiple senseless taxes?

[Petronski]

Look, I'm not a telemarketer.

LOL

[palmer]

The majority rules.
Been that way for quite a while now
Get used to it.

You mean I can't fire my weapons in my own yard if the majority doesn't like the noise? I'm not sure how long it's been that way, but it wasn't that way when this country was founded.

[Ditter]

Spoken like a true telemarketer!

[Petronski]

Is there a reason you have to answer your phone?

Because it might be an important call, rather than some jackass who wants to sell me fruit of the month.

[Slings and Arrows]

Any displaced telemarketers can take jobs as crack whores. They'll get a chance to socialize with their betters, and be in a profession where they'll have more self-respect.

[palmer]

Spoken like a true telemarketer!

Telemarketers benefit from government intervention particularly state regulatory boards that force local phone companies to accept all calls even if their customers don't want that. I say get rid of all regulations and let the market take care of them, they won't last long.

[Petronski]

Just because people can do other jobs doesn't mean that telemarketing wasn't a decent position for some people.

Paid telephonic harassment is in no way 'decent.'

[Petronski]

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.

Excellent, textbook economic analysis of the issue, except that the telemarketers expect the right to be paid to call everyone, including the right to call those who do not want to be called.

[HighWheeler]

"All those things invade your privacy and there's nothing you can do about it."

Not a very creative thinker, are you? Kinda hurts having all your thoughts stuck in the mud doesn't it?

[Indy Pendance]

If it's an important call, they could leave a message, and you could return it when you are able. I rarely take calls from telemarketers. You can tell when they call. The first clue is the silence. Dead giveaway it's a junk call. Most people will talk to you right away. Second is, the 'please hold for an important call' recording. Right, how many have actually holded for that? The third option is to have your kids answer. They fight over the phone anyway. They tell them I'm dead or moved. I've finally learned that I am not a slave to my phone. If it rings, it's my phone, and I'll answer it if I'm able. I'm not going to drop everything I'm doing to try to answer it in 30 seconds. I have an answering machine, and that works fine. Maybe I'm just lucky, I don't get that many junk calls. But, I'm still not going to sign up for a government list. Who knows what hillary and her kind would do with it. Remember the FBI files? Maybe I'm stretching it, but I figure, the less government in my life the better.

[palmer]

You're right. I can't creatively stretch the definition of privacy like you can. I just think allowing the wire negates it. I'm just stuck on that idea. Nor do I see any protection of privacy obligations in the Constitution. Maybe I need to think more creative about the Federal government's role in our lives.

[Petronski]

Good thing. You get 3 a week? Try 4 or 5 a day! Some nights 2....some days 8-10 or more.

Do you know anyone who served in the Navy? I'd get a bit of tutoring on some really solid vulgarity and obscenity....the truly gritty stuff. I'm down to less than five calls a month.

[DefCon]

"...You mean I can't fire my weapons in my own yard if the majority doesn't like the noise?..."
-
Yes, thats exactly what I mean.
- - -
"...I'm not sure how long it's been that way..."
-
Been that way for a long time, you really should get out more.
- - -
"...but it wasn't that way when this country was founded..."
-
Sure it was, its always been that way.
Anything the majority finds irritating enough is made illegal.
From raising livestock in town, to spitting on the sidewalk,
to dinking in public, to loud music, to having a noisy muffler,
the list goes on and on. When behavior gets obnoxious enough,
the people want something done about it.

[LowCountryJoe]

Yea Palmer, (I would have responded to #252 but I've been blocked by the elite) since your IQ isn't in the Mensa range that excludes you from having any wisdom or intellect, ON ANYTHING! I'm going to change my views and hope to gain approval from the board's resident M.I.T. professor. Maybe then they'll accept me.

[Slings and Arrows]

Let's go after the damned spammers next. Legislation's useless - a $15 per ear bounty should tidy things up.

I respectfully disagree - for that pittance, I'd keep them as trophies.

This leads to another idea: Make killing a spammer a petty misdemenor punishable by a $10 fine. The spammers would would be kept under control, and the revenue generated could go towards a worthwhile cause - euthanizing unemployable ex-telemarketers.

[palmer]

It's nice that you being so honest. I dislike statism even though I was all for it on the save Terri threads (using unconstitutional power to save her life).

[Petronski]

I'll do it too, I'm a friggin' kook!

Your private freepmails certainly could prove that.