So increadible, I had to post:
The July amateur wrestling match in Tbilisi (former Soviet republic of Georgia), between Dzhambulat Khotokhov (123 pounds, from Russia) and Georgy Bibilauri (112 pounds, from Georgia) ended in a draw, and afterward, both wrestlers broke training briefly for ice cream and cake to celebrate Bibilauri's birthday. Bibilauri is now 5 years old; Khotokhov is 4.[ABC News-AP, 7-9-03]
Ah, sweet blissful silence.
So far today, the phone has yet to ring. Now typically, caller ID would have shown roughly 12-15 calls already, with another 5 by 9pm. I love you Do Not Call List!
Now, let me address why those opposed to this are wrong in their conclusions. First, the weak argument by companies that this goes against their right to free speach. Well, when did pestering somebody to purchase something become covered under the First Amendment? Last I checked, that fell under harassment, which is a violation of the right to privacy. Ok, let's assume that this somehow is covered under the First Amendment. Rights are only granted as long as they do not overstep someone else's rights. Then, arbitration is needed. Clearly, the government has arbitrated that a person's right to privacy has superceeded a telemarketer's right to free speach.
Now, let's dispell the argument that this will cause an excess of lost jobs. First, there are 166 million registered residential phone numbers. Now, there's only been 50 million numbers listed in the do not call registry. That's less than 1/3 of the available numbers. Those who have listed their numbers are the people who will not be buying anything from telemarketers. All the list does is tell marketers who to exclude from their targeted advertising. Come on, you're not going to target an ad for adult diapers to 20-somethings, so why target people who will not buy over the phone with telemarketing. It's not the list that is reducing the work force, it's the way the business model was implemented.
Telemarketing firms are quick to state they need to reduce their workforce drastically, sometimes up to 80 percent. Now, if a company is reducing their workforce by 80 percent because of a loss of 30 percent potential customers, there is a much bigger issue facing that company than the introduction of this list.
This will be better for the economy since advertisers can reduce the amount of fees paid to telemarketers which will be reflected in the cost of the goods. Also, there will be an increased return for the amount that is spent for this type of advertising. While it is no consolation to those loosing their jobs, it is the business model in place that is causing these losses, not the list itself.
Not to be stereotypical, but a good portion of those in telemarketing working for a living (excluding all the college kids who are doing this to get rent money and pizza money) are people with only a high school (or lower) degree. I say to those, go get an education and get a job that uses your skills. You say, "but I can't afford an education." To that I say, this is where the government has failed you - not in implementing a do no call list, but in denying you the means for education or training and pursuing another career. There are several fields that are actually hurting for work - health care to name one - that would welcome the extra workers.