MikePA:
<font color="blue">The only law that never needed to be passed and will never be repealed is the Law of Unintended Consequences and there were a number of unintended consequences associated with this legislation. </font>
I'm not going to respond to the various economic illiterates who have posted to this thread, but your post does deserve a response. Some of the consequences, MidePA, you refer to:
1) Everything anyone buys will increase in price. Some increases will be trivial, others measurably. Marketing by telephone, if done responsibly, is more personal and less expensive. Increasing costs increases, ultimately, what people pay for things - and NOT just things sold by telephone. Often, the telephone call is merely an initial contact followed up by literature and future contacts until the sale is made. The actual sale may not be made by phone at all. Often sales are a matter of timing. The telephone is a less expensive way, and more personal, to maintain that contact over time until the person is ready to purchase something. This legislation is just one more nail in the coffin of American business added to 100s of other "nails" raising the costs of doing business, and hence the prices of things. Everything that adds costs to business adds to the price of what people buy. It works its way through the economy.
1a) To give a very specific example of #1. I publish a color catalog with prices of things (as far as I know, no one in the industry puts anything out like I do - at least not on the retail level). Let me use the example of headstones. I personally know of one competitor (a larger dealer who sells many more headstones than I do) who uses my pricing as a competitive benchmark - and I doubt he's the only one. This person does not use telephone contacts. As a direct result of this legislation I will be adding a surcharge to every product I sell. When this competitor finds out my prices have gone up, he will certainly raise his prices accordingly. Thus people purchasing headstones from us, including someone not using telephone contact, will pay a bit more than they otherwise would have directly as a result of this legislation. Multiply this by 10,000s of times throughout the economy for all kinds of products. Of course, the economic illiterates don't understand things like this. They bite the hand that feeds them.
2) There will be an increase in "fly by night" boiler rooms. When you become subject to outrageous fines for simply trying to do honest business, why bother. Set up a boiler room with the idea of closing up in a few months when the fines start hitting, then open again under a different name. There will be MORE flakey operations as a result of this legislation, not less. And, of course, those same ignorant people who supported the legislation that caused the problem in the first place, will, no doubt, support stricter enforcement in a viscous circle. Of course, those same people lack the ability to grasp that they themselves were the cause of what they are objecting to.
3) There will be an increase in jobs going overseas. While I do not have a "telemarketing" company and only use the telephone incidently in my business, if I DID have one I would certainly be looking at setting up overseas where I could find English speakers (India comes to mind) and it would be easier to avoid the legislation. I see posts on this site from people bemoaning jobs going overseas, no doubt the same people who support such laws as the "no call" lists. Like I said, economic illiterates biting the hand that feeds them then objecting to the consequences.
4) "The straw that broke the camel's back" - yes, an old cliche. No, I do not think this legislation is that straw, but it IS another straw added to the unproductive load the economy already has to carry. And every "straw" brings us closer to collapse. Compared to the tort/liability problems, OSHA, EPA, ADA, etc. etc. ad nauseum, this one is fairly small. But it is a REAL additional cost imposed on an economy already dangling by a thread. And when the thread breaks, those same people will certainly not acknowledge that it was their demand, for their little goodie, that broke it.
I could go on, but what's the point. I doubt if anyone supporting this legislation has given ANY serious thought to any of the issues/consequences just mentioned.
Anyway, thank you, MikePA, for having, and showing, a grasp of reality on this particular issue.
JEH