71–80 of 514 posts
If non-competes are banned, then TCs are (probably) going to rise even more.
Noncompete clauses for workers is the most anti-american, anti-free-market policy anyone could pull. If workers aren't free to switch to better jobs and at the same time are left to fend off for themselves them the economic system starts to resemble feudalism.
> anti-free-market policy I go back and forth on that. It seems like the free market ideal would be to allow them and if people didn't like them they wouldn't sign them. No one telling anyone what to do. It certainly hasn't panned out that way though.
Non-Competes being legal is only acceptable I think if the worker will continued being paid for the period of the non-compete. I can see reasons that non-competes exist, but those reasons don't really make sense in a world where patents and trademarks also exist. The fact that they are essentially illegal in California, and California's economy works shows that they are unnecessary and also don't hinder technological…
Should be reciprocal if it exists. I.e. if the employee leaves, the company would be barred from hiring anyone else for any remotely similar tasks. Make them taste their own medicine and decide if it's worth it.
Uncompensated non-compete clauses have been pretty much unenforceable anyway given the cost of enforcement and the actual value to the enforcer (usually less than 6 figures). It's a good step to ban these given that all they do is make people afraid to work somewhere else. Compensated non-competes are a totally different story, and probably better to hold on to.
Burned a bridge, of course, but it took them about 20 minutes to decide I wasn't worth the hassle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> anti-free-market policy I go back and forth on that. It seems like the free market ideal would be to allow them and if people didn't like them they wouldn't sign them. No one telling anyone what to do. It certainly hasn't panned out that way though.
They should be legal, but expensive. If it is so valuable to companies that their workers not leave to work for competitors, they should be required to pay 100% salary for the non-compete period.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is such a move not one of the purposes of these agencies staffed by (supposedly) experts and run by appointees? Legislature is so dysfunctional that the House can't elect a speaker at this very moment, and who knows if such a measure would even see the light of day in committee let alone get to the floor if the lobbyists got wind of it. If the lawmakers take issue with the ruling they can issue a mandate to roll it b…
The problem is, the courts may decide to kill it off before Congress gets out of its gridlock and approve or deny it, as many other regulations have been. Executive decrees or questionably legal actions of government agencies are fundamentally bad - but have become commonplace and a necessity of life since Congress is fundamentally broken. And at the core, the problem is that the US' political system unlike everyone…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is such a move not one of the purposes of these agencies staffed by (supposedly) experts and run by appointees? Legislature is so dysfunctional that the House can't elect a speaker at this very moment, and who knows if such a measure would even see the light of day in committee let alone get to the floor if the lobbyists got wind of it. If the lawmakers take issue with the ruling they can issue a mandate to roll it b…
The problem is, the courts may decide to kill it off before Congress gets out of its gridlock and approve or deny it, as many other regulations have been. Executive decrees or questionably legal actions of government agencies are fundamentally bad - but have become commonplace and a necessity of life since Congress is fundamentally broken. And at the core, the problem is that the US' political system unlike everyone…
Two wrongs don't make a right. Everyone involved should remember that the US is a federation of fifty states that share sovereignty with the federal government, and that nothing stops the various states from enacting their own noncompete bans in their better-functioning state legislatures. They can even do that in cooperation with other states, in order to accomplish the goal in a harmonious manner; see the Uniform Commercial Code for an example.
I don't see gridlock in Congress as an example of it being fundamentally broken. I see it working as intended, since only few matters have such broad agreement among the people in all fifty states that Congress should decide on it for the whole nation. In fact, the fewer things decided on in that fashion, the better for the country as a whole.
This is obviously great for workers and competition. It's actually good for companies too, even if they are too short sighted to realize it. See: silicon valley.
Ending non-competes would be good for GDP growth and the US economy writ large. But it's not necessarily for any particular company. See: all the businesses killed off by silicon valley.
Similar to how rent collection is a massive drag on economic productivity but fixing the housing crisis would be terrible for certain rent extractors in particular.
Non-Competes being legal is only acceptable I think if the worker will continued being paid for the period of the non-compete. I can see reasons that non-competes exist, but those reasons don't really make sense in a world where patents and trademarks also exist. The fact that they are essentially illegal in California, and California's economy works shows that they are unnecessary and also don't hinder technological…
> The fact that they are essentially illegal in California, and California's economy works shows that they are unnecessary and also don't hinder technological development. The general rules that most states use for deciding when non-competes are enforceable aren't that bad. E.g. if you work at a bakery, you're not going to be allowed to open your own bakery two blocks away within a year, but it's fine if you do it a…