Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 530 posts

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#461

Post by xpe »

Jiro wrote: post #460
xpe wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. I just read [1]. > Whether the net benefit is good or bad is largely a subjective matter of political opinion. Without knowing the intention of the author above, when I see the phrase "subjective matter of political opinion", it makes me wonder if it serves as a "semantic stop sign" or "thought-terminating cliché"[2]. WRT net benefits... it is one thing to have differing predictions about what will happen and…

>For example, in the cases of an ambiguous law, who is better suited to understand the ambiguity... "Understanding the ambiguity" is fine if we are talking about trying to figure out what was intended by the people who put the ambiguous phrases in. But the issue isn't about who can "understand" the ambiguity, it's about who's going to be making things up and giving the ambiguity as an excuse. Asking whether bureaucra…

Yes, I agree. Understanding the ambiguity is not the only criteria.

My comment two levels up was not a comprehensive assessment of the pros and cons of this policy issue. My goal was to highlight that while I recognize subjective opinions, I care about them relatively less until we fully pursue rational means of understanding.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#463

Post by xpe »

adastra22 wrote: post #445
xpe wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. I just read [1]. > Whether the net benefit is good or bad is largely a subjective matter of political opinion. Without knowing the intention of the author above, when I see the phrase "subjective matter of political opinion", it makes me wonder if it serves as a "semantic stop sign" or "thought-terminating cliché"[2]. WRT net benefits... it is one thing to have differing predictions about what will happen and…

We live in a representative democracy where the powers of the government are constrained by constitutional law to be specific and enumerated, and aside from common-law precedent derive from a mandate by the people. Yet it is increasingly the case that the actual rules which citizens and corporations are required to follow are being set not by elected representatives but by unelected bureaucrats of government agencies…

For what it is worth, in my comments I am attempting to put aside any subjective assessment of the noncompete ban being good or bad. I am very interested in the rational basis for the FTC having the authority to do it (or not).

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#464

Post by namaria »

syklep wrote: post #432
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He rejected $30,000,000. Jury awarded 1/6 after litigation. Ford payed double to get rid of this nuisance. $30 million in 1990 was fuck you money. It’s still enough to comfortably retire on for a high school aged person.

Inflation begs to differ. That much money left liquid for 60 years at 10% inflation will be worth less than 100k of today’s money. Edit: sorry about the non sequitur. Bitterly learning about inflation and fiat recently.

You should learn some more.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#465

Post by xpe »

adastra22 wrote: post #445
xpe wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. I just read [1]. > Whether the net benefit is good or bad is largely a subjective matter of political opinion. Without knowing the intention of the author above, when I see the phrase "subjective matter of political opinion", it makes me wonder if it serves as a "semantic stop sign" or "thought-terminating cliché"[2]. WRT net benefits... it is one thing to have differing predictions about what will happen and…

We live in a representative democracy where the powers of the government are constrained by constitutional law to be specific and enumerated, and aside from common-law precedent derive from a mandate by the people. Yet it is increasingly the case that the actual rules which citizens and corporations are required to follow are being set not by elected representatives but by unelected bureaucrats of government agencies…

> Our freedom is dependent on safeguarding our democracy, …

Yes, I agree.

> and that means no rules that don't trace their core to laws passed by elected representatives.

I think this is too strong of a claim. Why?

We live under many rules that don’t trace back to laws elected by elected representatives. Many of our laws descend from common law which predates representative democracy.

Not to mention that there are tremendous sources of power outside one’s governmental sphere that constrain our options, such as culture, corporations, and other governments. Whether one calls these “rules” or “constraints” is sort of beside the point when you focus on a society’s ability to respond to undesirable forces. This leads to how I would restate your claim…

Perhaps a more accurate statement would be this: freedom depends on mechanisms such that the people can drive policy.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#466

Post by mattmaroon »

cryptonector wrote: post #271
mattmaroon wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While your points are good, on the other hand, Congress at this point is totally broken, it’s hard to imagine it becoming unbroken (since it would require an amendment which is usually passed by Congress and they have no desire to make things harder for themselves), and it’s beholden to special interests in a way that the executive branch often isn’t. So at least this way, things can get done.

> Congress at this point is totally broken If Congress can delegate authority at will and with tremendous vagueness vagueness (as in the case of the FTC) then that allows Congress to be more disfunctional. If the Court reverses Chevron and later guts the FTC then Congress will have to get its act together -- they might not, but if they do then the Court will have helped us enormously.

I don’t agree with that mental model because it assumes Congress has to make sure the job gets done. They don’t. They can be as dysfunctional as they want.

Polls show that the vast majority of people are unhappy with Congress, and yet they get re-elected at very high rates. There’s no real reason to suspect that their job performance had anything to do with getting elected anymore.

They could very easily just fail to regulate everything that actually needs it. The alternative to the FTC isn’t Congress doing the regulation, it’s no regulation at all.

Perhaps I’m overly pessimistic but I think we’ve gotten to a point where gerrymandering has just broken Congress irreparably by divorcing their job security from their effectiveness. I hope I’m wrong and you’re right.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#467

Post by mlrtime »

davidgay wrote: post #394
zippothrowaway wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or the employee agreement you sign includes a notice period of 6 months from either side. I think you're right that negotiated gardening leave will happen but I can also see companies baking in the gardening leave at the start of employment (so no longer at will) as being cheaper.

> Or the employee agreement you sign includes a notice period of 6 months from either side. Those are illegal in at-will states.

They are not illegal, and even if there is a grey area good luck defending.

I worked at a hedge fund in NYC. I gave my 2 week notice. HR said that the employee contract that I signed when I joined stated a minimum of a 4 month notice period. This would have completely killed my next job which I already accepted.

I should have known this was in the employee agreement, but I didn't know they they would threaten lawyers on me if I didn't stay 3 months.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#468

Post by lumb63 »

electrondood wrote: post #346
lumb63 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another interpretation is that the ruling party is bribing people now that election season is ramping up by passing rules it knows has no standing in court, but won’t get shot down until post-election. Imagine all the people who voted for Biden thinking he would absolve them of the contract they willfully entered to pay their student loans. This is not much different. It is another group of people who have contracts…

I've heard this talking point before, and it's really silly to frame it as shenanigans somehow because of the timing, rather than elected officials enacting popular policies that the voters want. That's literally their job.

There is a body of actually elected officials whose job is to create legislation to enact public policies. The FTC is neither elected nor capable of creating legislation. This is an overreach of their power and will likely be ruled as such in court.

The same thing happened with Roe; it is not the job of the Supreme Court to enact public policy. That is for the legislature to do. If you talk to anyone in law, they will tell you that, regardless of their personal opinion on abortion, Roe is perceived as one of the worst court rulings ever because it was specifically designed to “legislate through the court”. Here we are in the same position again, with a non-legislative body enacting public policy; we don’t learn.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#469

Post by xpe »

adastra22 wrote: post #445
xpe wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. I just read [1]. > Whether the net benefit is good or bad is largely a subjective matter of political opinion. Without knowing the intention of the author above, when I see the phrase "subjective matter of political opinion", it makes me wonder if it serves as a "semantic stop sign" or "thought-terminating cliché"[2]. WRT net benefits... it is one thing to have differing predictions about what will happen and…

We live in a representative democracy where the powers of the government are constrained by constitutional law to be specific and enumerated, and aside from common-law precedent derive from a mandate by the people. Yet it is increasingly the case that the actual rules which citizens and corporations are required to follow are being set not by elected representatives but by unelected bureaucrats of government agencies…

You say some things that make sense to me, but then you use the phrase “waging war”…

> FDA, for example, which is currently waging war on ADHD patients via the artificial Adderall shortage

Why do you choose this loaded language? This does not build credibility in my eyes. War means something, and it not that.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#470

Post by amarcheschi »

bdowling wrote: post #437
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He rejected $30,000,000. Jury awarded 1/6 after litigation. Ford payed double to get rid of this nuisance. $30 million in 1990 was fuck you money. It’s still enough to comfortably retire on for a high school aged person.

Don’t forget that the lawyers probably took 33-40%, after costs.

He acted as his own layer, or at least, it's what Wikipedia reports
Post reply on HN