Telemarketers: "Do Not Call list will destroy us." Supreme Court: "Go to hell"

[foxnewssucks]

Only hope? How about wating tables or doing customer service or retail.  There are other options.

I was a telemarketer.  I know what it was like.  I think Bisquick's point was that, for some people, its their only hope.

yeah, those are the 7 dollar a hour, while you are going to school jobs, with the average person probably staying employed there for 4 months.

No, I know a girl that was supporting her little girl on it because she had no other hope.  It was a sad story, but I am sure there are countless more like it.  She will be on welfare now, I have little doubt. 

well maybe she can spend more time with her kid now or look for another job.

[MaroonOut2005]

Those jobs are harder to acquire.  Telemarketing was constantly in demand for employees, thus for some people it is the only job they can get.

Again, I'm not saying I disagree with the no-call list.  I don't think the telemarkets had any standing with the privacy claim, but I do see Bisquick's point.

Only hope? How about wating tables or doing customer service or retail. There are other options.

I was a telemarketer.  I know what it was like.  I think Bisquick's point was that, for some people, its their only hope.

yeah, those are the 7 dollar a hour, while you are going to school jobs, with the average person probably staying employed there for 4 months.

No, I know a girl that was supporting her little girl on it because she had no other hope.  It was a sad story, but I am sure there are countless more like it.  She will be on welfare now, I have little doubt. 

well maybe she can spend more time with her kid now or look for another job.

[Bisquick]

Only hope? How about wating tables or doing customer service or retail. There are other options.

I was a telemarketer.  I know what it was like.  I think Bisquick's point was that, for some people, its their only hope.

yeah, those are the 7 dollar a hour, while you are going to school jobs, with the average person probably staying employed there for 4 months.

No, I know a girl that was supporting her little girl on it because she had no other hope.  It was a sad story, but I am sure there are countless more like it.  She will be on welfare now, I have little doubt. 

well maybe she can spend more time with her kid now or look for another job.

You seem to not realize that this is/is going to dump a crap load of folks onto an already saturated low-income job market.  90% of the telemarketers you knew were like what?  College temps?

[foxnewssucks]

Only hope? How about wating tables or doing customer service or retail. There are other options.

I was a telemarketer.  I know what it was like.  I think Bisquick's point was that, for some people, its their only hope.

yeah, those are the 7 dollar a hour, while you are going to school jobs, with the average person probably staying employed there for 4 months.

No, I know a girl that was supporting her little girl on it because she had no other hope.  It was a sad story, but I am sure there are countless more like it.  She will be on welfare now, I have little doubt. 

well maybe she can spend more time with her kid now or look for another job.

You seem to not realize that this is/is going to dump a crap load of folks onto an already saturated low-income job market.  90% of the telemarketers you knew were like what?  College temps?

yes, college students who did it part time.  There is no doubt that people lose jobs because of it and that is bad, but there are other options.

[Bisquick]

Ever think this might be because you mostly know part time college students and odds are high (I could be wrong) that you don't generally hang out with HS dropouts and 20 year olds that already have 4 year old kids?

[foxnewssucks]

well, this is my experience because I dated someone who had a staffing company who specialized in hiring for these types of jobs, so this is mainly feeback from her and some other things I have seen.  I know that there are 20 year old HS dropouts, etc as well.  There are also the 20 year old city college students with their GED and 4 year old kids too.  There are many different situations, I just think that jobs like these are not difficult to find and obtain, and at least around here, people find other suitable work.

Ever think this might be because you mostly know part time college students and odds are high (I could be wrong) that you don't generally hang out with HS dropouts and 20 year olds that already have 4 year old kids?

[M2]

I agree that this will cause a lot of jobs to be lost but the thing is that a lot of these employers operate like criminals.  I have a friend that worked telemarketing jobs often during college and he said the way that they operate is dispicable.

Often times the employer wouldn't pay all of the commision due, or the company would just all of a sudden disappear and not pay anyone... also these companies call and HARASS people, and even if you ask them to stop calling they often dont.

In my mind these are basically criminal operations that are being forced to close...so its a bit different.

[buster]

This has been bothering me for two days now -- a rather simplistic view of things, isn't it? Do you really think that because liberals want people to have jobs (as do conservatives, I assume) they should oppose any measure that threatens any jobs just for the sake of some sort of useless consistency?

It seems to me that as hesitant as they (we?) are to say it out loud, liberals also support regulation. Left to their own, businesses tend toward profit-making at the expense of all sorts of standards -- safety, decency, privacy, environmental concerns, etc. Isn't the trick to attempt to balance long-term goals with short-term employment implications?

I know you're just making a clever little point, Bisquick, but if we want to have a conversation about trade-offs let's do it for real rather than nitpicking about superficial contradictions.

You know what is funny.  Out of all the Bush economic policies that liberals do not like, this is the one that without ANY doubt will cause huge numbers of people to lose their jobs and all the liberals on here love it.

Strange what trade-offs we make in our values.

(I'm not just pointing fingers, I'm on the do not call list too.)

[The ZAPINATOR]

In general, based on what I know, liberals are for more regulations.  Conservatives are for de-regulation, for the most part.  I don't see where you're going with this.  If you're for regulation, why are you hesitant to say it out loud?

I think Biscuit's point is excellent.  It isn't such useless consistency when REAL people are losing REAL jobs.  Seems like it's a REAL problem liberals (who claim to be stalwart supporters of the working-class) have to justify to themselves somehow.  Telemarketing is a HUGE industry.  If me answering the phone and being free to hang up on a telemarketer is the only thing keeping a single mother with a paycheck to feed her kid, I'm going to keep answering that phone gladly, and I'll just keep hanging up on her.  I don't see how we're balancing costs and benefits here, or how my inconvenience trumps the fact that real people are going to lose their jobs, from a liberal perspective. 

ZAP

This has been bothering me for two days now -- a rather simplistic view of things, isn't it? Do you really think that because liberals want people to have jobs (as do conservatives, I assume) they should oppose any measure that threatens any jobs just for the sake of some sort of useless consistency?

It seems to me that as hesitant as they (we?) are to say it out loud, liberals also support regulation. Left to their own, businesses tend toward profit-making at the expense of all sorts of standards -- safety, decency, privacy, environmental concerns, etc. Isn't the trick to attempt to balance long-term goals with short-term employment implications?

I know you're just making a clever little point, Bisquick, but if we want to have a conversation about trade-offs let's do it for real rather than nitpicking about superficial contradictions.

You know what is funny.  Out of all the Bush economic policies that liberals do not like, this is the one that without ANY doubt will cause huge numbers of people to lose their jobs and all the liberals on here love it.

Strange what trade-offs we make in our values.

(I'm not just pointing fingers, I'm on the do not call list too.)

[buster]

To me, Biscuit insinuated that it is hypocritical of liberals to support the Do Not Call list because it might cost jobs. I guess my point is really just that there are always trade-offs; support for the Do Not Call list does not equate to wanton disregard for people losing jobs. Neither does, for instance, support for higher gas mileage standards, another regulatory area which has the potential to cost jobs but is (arguably, of course) desirable in the long run.

(I'm for regulation. I am never hesitant to say it out loud. The way I phrased that was just to acknowledge that I am a part of the group about which I was making a general comment.)

In general, based on what I know, liberals are for more regulations.  Conservatives are for de-regulation, for the most part.  I don't see where you're going with this.  If you're for regulation, why are you hesitant to say it out loud?

I think Biscuit's point is excellent.  It isn't such useless consistency when REAL people are losing REAL jobs.  Seems like it's a REAL problem liberals (who claim to be stalwart supporters of the working-class) have to justify to themselves somehow.  Telemarketing is a HUGE industry.  If me answering the phone and being free to hang up on a telemarketer is the only thing keeping a single mother with a paycheck to feed her kid, I'm going to keep answering that phone gladly, and I'll just keep hanging up on her.  I don't see how we're balancing costs and benefits here, or how my inconvenience trumps the fact that real people are going to lose their jobs, from a liberal perspective. 

ZAP