"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 read this piece just after it was posted on Cato's Daily Commentary a few weeks back. I noticed that it was being reintroduced (linked) because of an LA Times piece on how this new legislation is going to indirectly cause the increase of unemployed. I see now, with hindsight, where you Mr. Levy could have made three more points with his piece if he wanted to. Allow me to point them out as I see it:

1) Unemployment arising from those who will be displaced due to the decrease of economic activity. This not only includes traditional telemarketers but other sales persons who rely on phone contacts to make a living. Like Realtors, Insurance & Financial salesmen; and may include other educated professionals such as attorneys, physicians, and therapists that are trying to break out on their own.

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. Once this happens, I wonder what will happen with regard to the economic activity in those industries included in my first point.

3) Can you imagine being a telemarketer or anyone of those professionals that might use a phone to solicit business in order to earn a living? Now imagine having a small portion of YOUR income taxed in order to fund the administrative and enforcement costs of the very 'Registry' that hampers your ability to make a living the way you have chosen to do so.

it's unbelievable that this has happened. I think someone with some courage should deliberately violate the law in order to eventually make these arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court. I think these are valid arguments, don't you? I would just enjoy watch our elected officials having to choose between acknowledging their stupidity or actually pushing for a constitutional amendment to reinforce their non-belief in freemarket solutions.

[ThinkDifferent]

In a related story, laws against theft force pickpockets to find other jobs.

[tessalu]

I am sorry that people will lose their jobs, but their free speech ends where my PAID telephone line begins.

[lovecraft]

Democracy ends at my front door. Once inside, my house becomes a dictatorship.

[CJ Wolf]

Lemme guess you are a telemarketer?

[meyer]

Think of the "do not call" list as a "no soliciting" or "no tresspassing" sign on my phone line. Nothing illegal about that.

Twisting this into an employment issue won't help - these people aren't productive members of society. As long as they waste time invading the homes of the rest of us, their efforts are fruitless. If we did away with the IRS, would that be spun into an employment issue as well?

[mountaineer]

There are other jobs available - jobs that don't involve being hung up on by aggravated citizens like me, for example.

[Adam-ondi-Ahman]

I wonder how many of the telemarketers put themselves on the "Do Not Call List". As I see it, now these outfits will spend the money that was paid to these workers in other pursuits that will hire people in other areas, such as more advertising or trade shows, etc. Those that made wagon wheels a century back found other ways to make a living.

[LibKill]

Sorry, no sympathy here.

[sirchtruth]

I think these are valid arguments, don't you?

As much as I can not stand these friggin TM calls, I still think they should not be barred from calling. If someone doesn't want the calling just say "thanks very much, bye!"

What the hell has happened to us in this country? Our selfish attitudes lead us to use this Do Not Call registry because God forbid we might be "bothered"

Get a life!

[Moosilauke]

By this logic, any of us who use spam filters to prevent unwanted "free speech" from clogging our mailboxes are contributing to unemployment and threatening the welfare of those "educated professionals" who are "trying to break out on their own". Humbug!

[Bikers4Bush]

I pay for my line, I own it, it's mine. If I don't want to be harassed then I have that right.

Maybe those telemarketers should go out and do the "jobs no american wants to do" so we can force the illegals out of our country.

[NicknamedBob]

"In a related story, laws against theft force pickpockets to find other jobs."

In a related story, burglars are suing to have locked doors and barred windows declared unlawful restraint of trade and a violation of Americans with Disabilities Act.

[The Clemson Tiger]

OTOH, you'll keep from losing existing customers like myself who will refuse to do business with companies/businesses that feel it's OK to disturb their customers at home. I can name several.

Not to mention the savings realized by not calling people who will not entertain telephone solicitations. Think of it as market research.

[thoughtomator]

On the other hand, the number of Americans with an irrepressible desire to mass murder entire buildings full of telemarketers has plummeted dramatically.

[petercooper]

"Do Not Call" Means Poorest May Lose Jobs

If 50 million people have signed up for this do not call list, isn't safe to say that all them (including me) never purchase anything from these unsolicited phone calls? So by implementing the list, we are doing these telemarketing firms a favor by better defining their target market. They'll save plenty of $$ on wasted phone calls.

[Redleg Duke]

LowCountryJoe...member since November 6, 2003!

Troll alert!

[randog]

I have a shop next to a large telemarketing outfit. They have a permanent "Now Hiring" sign out in front of their office, which tells me that they have a high turnover rate, which tells me that telemarketing grunts don't have problems finding other jobs.

[Sender]

The free market ends where my phone line begins. I consider these bottom-feeding, minimum-wage telemarketers to not only be a nuisance, but also home invaders.

This is not a free speech or free market issue, it's a trespassing issue. If I want carpet cleaners or vinyl siding or prepaid legal services, I'll call them.

[Petronski]

I'd love to share my words of sympathy with you. Just post your home number on this thread, and I'll call you to sympathize some time this evening, maybe about dinner time.

In fact, I'm quite sure Freepers are a very sympathetic lot, and you're likely to get quite a few calls of sympathy.

Maybe you could include the phone numbers of your family members (elderly parents, etc.) so we can really spread the sympathy around nice and thick.