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

521–530 of 530 posts

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#521

Post by cryptonector »

runako wrote: post #520
cryptonector wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Congress is disfunctional then every vague delegation of power can be abused by the Executive because Congress will not be able to say no after the fact. That means Congress stays disfuncitonal. That's not a good recipe.

Congress is dysfunctional because there is a populist political movement that does not believe in governing. Eventually, that fever will break. (Or they will succeed and we will lose the republic, in which case discussions about the efficacy of Congress become moot.)

I don't think so. People have been complaining about Congress' dysfunction for decades, even when it was fully in the hands of one or the other party. I don't think Congress' dysfunction has anything to do with partisanship. And yes, "populists" get to have a voice -- that's what it means to have a representative democracy and republic. If "populists" (or whatever) need to be negotiated with, so be it, but it's not intransigence that makes Congress dysfunctional. I suspect the problem here is that you want activist agencies to ratchet-like interpret power delegations ever more broadly as long as you agree with those interpretations, but that is a very risky game.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#522

Post by cryptonector »

timeflex wrote: post #518
cryptonector wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When district and appeals courts do what they like, the SCOTUS can reverse every one of their decisions. The inferior courts can then go on a spree of incorrectly deciding every relevant case and delay the final judgement by years, but then the SCOTUS could just speed up its process of reversing every such decision by the inferior courts. The SCOTUS also has options for removing judges from certain types of cases, II…

There has been times in the past where the other branches ignored the Supreme Courts rulings. They cannot call out troops. The only people that give them power are the other branches that enforce those rulings, but they could decide not to.

Yes, this is true, but within the judicial branch itself, the SCOTUS does have a fair bit of power.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#523

Post by cryptonector »

runako wrote: post #519
cryptonector wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Chevron scheme essentially leads a disfunctional Congress to abdicate all its regulatory power slowly but surely and to never claw it back. Why even have a Congress? Reversing Chevron might or might not help Congress get its pants back on, but it's worth a try, and I hope the SCOTUS does it. If it doesn't work, then we'll have to confront the possibility that the Founders' design no longer works and some serious…

Congress does not abdicate power at all. Congress is not prevented from regulating when it feels like doing so. Just because some people do not like the results of their delegation does not mean that Congress is similarly dissatisfied with those same results. Some parties want Congress to be dissatisfied and exercise its powers. Congress regulated a single app made by a single company this week; Congress can act when…

I think it's pretty certain that under Chevron and w/o W. Virginia vs. EPA the EPA could ban ICEs tomorrow and the courts would allow it, and Congress would be unable to stop it, but that would be a very drastic thing to do and it should require debate, and we wouldn't get it. If you don't think that scenario is likely, there are others somewhat less extreme and more likely ones one could conjure up.

I think that's abdication.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#524

Post by kulahan »

saulpw wrote: post #395
kiba wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patents are no longer about protecting R&D investments. Patents are always the tool of the moneyed and the lawyered, which is not the same thing as protecting R&D investment. There are exception, such as the guy who spent 12 years suing car companies over the windshield wiper, but that actually proves the rule because of time spent. It even apparently cause his marriage to break down. [1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/…

To be fair, this appears to be a case of greed: > Kearns sought $395 million in damages. He turned down a $30 million settlement offer in 1990 and took it to the jury, which awarded him $5.2 million; Ford agreed to pay $10.2 million rather than face another round of litigation.

$30m is still fuck you money today. Invest and live off the dividends and you’re pulling down an absolutely insane salary

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#525

Post by Gormo »

timeflex wrote: post #518
cryptonector wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When district and appeals courts do what they like, the SCOTUS can reverse every one of their decisions. The inferior courts can then go on a spree of incorrectly deciding every relevant case and delay the final judgement by years, but then the SCOTUS could just speed up its process of reversing every such decision by the inferior courts. The SCOTUS also has options for removing judges from certain types of cases, II…

There has been times in the past where the other branches ignored the Supreme Courts rulings. They cannot call out troops. The only people that give them power are the other branches that enforce those rulings, but they could decide not to.

I think if we got to the point that we could not rely on Supreme Court rulings being upheld without the mobilization of troops, we will already be in a situation of fundamental institutional collapse anyway, and questions of constitutionality and legality of anything will become moot as we descend into a raw state of nature.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#526

Post by anticensor »

fidotron wrote: post #111
ascendantlogic wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the subtle sarcasm here. OP is implying that companies will deem engineers making $150k+ as making policy decisions in order to continue enforcing the existing non-competes they have most likely signed.

I wish I was being sarcastic! IME the sort of people putting non-competes in contracts will claim things like "programming is simply the act of defining company policy in machine form".

That type of wording reduces programming to a mere policy-translation job, not a policy-making job.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#527

Post by Breza »

RHSeeger wrote: post #444
adastra22 wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Must be nice to have a bonus. Never worked in a place that had one!

Bonuses come out of the money used to pay salaries. All things being the same, any company that pays bonuses will pay a lower base salary. That being said, if you're good at convincing people of your worth, you can come out with higher than the "base" bonus, so ahead of the curve. But you're also paying more in the way of risk (lower income of the company doesn't do well, or you can't convince people you were importa…

Totally agree. I worked at a company where everybody was always paid the full bonus target. We were acquired by a much larger company that was confused. Eventually after much persuasion they just folded the bonuses into our base salary.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#528

Post by OkayPhysicist »

lumb63 wrote: post #468
electrondood wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wil…

To quote Congress, in chartering the FTC:

"Under this Act, as amended, the Commission is empowered, among other things, to (a) prevent unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce; (b) seek monetary redress and other relief for conduct injurious to consumers; (c) prescribe rules defining with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive, and establishing requirements designed to prevent such acts or practices; (d) gather and compile information and conduct investigations relating to the organization, business, practices, and management of entities engaged in commerce; and (e) make reports and legislative recommendations to Congress and the public."

Noncompete acts are an unfair method of competition (see (a)), which Congress granted the FTC the power to define and restrict (see (c)). It is, quite literally, their job.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#529

Post by Overtonwindow »

fckgw wrote: post #284
Overtonwindow wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same as student loans. It’s election season.

Oh no, a sneaky politician trying to win my vote by making material changes that improve my life!

But.. why did you have to wait so long? Politicians should have been making material changes to improve your life without it being an election year. We should demand better of public servants.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#530

Post by benced »

_akhe wrote: post #515
benced wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said "I suspect this is bad for California" which I stand by. That statement says absolutely nothing about whether or not I think this is a good decision by the FTC. However, you treated it like I was against this action by the FTC and started arguing about why it's good to ban noncompetes and why it's good California is on the leading edge of such policies. As it happens, I am very against noncompetes and I very m…

I have to remind you that your original comment was: It is bad for a state - at least in relative terms - if it has a good thing and suddenly every state has that good thing. You were not talking about the FTC, you were talking about the state. Furthermore, the parent comment to which you're replying was: It's not bad when people are copying you, it signals that California is ahead of the curve on the issue... which…

Yes, I agree that I was always talking about whether this was good or bad for California. You then provided arguments against non-competes:

> Some of those non-competes were ridiculous with their "in perpetuity throughout the ends of the Universe" type wordplay, I'm surprised governments haven't been more vigilant on things like the stifling of entrepreneurial mobility, since it only helps their economies in the long run to do so.

> Make it possible to disrupt, design economies for entrepreneurs as much as for corporations, and reap the benefits IMO. Let those big evil uglies get disrupted if they can't stay relevant or retain top talent.

My point all along is that "is this a good thing for the FTC to do?" and "is the FTC doing this thing good for California" are separate questions. My initial comment only opined - in the negative direction - on the latter question which is why I have been perpetually confused about you arguing the former question.

Post reply on HN