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

Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

computerworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 222 posts

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#81

Post by ClumsyPilot »

kortilla wrote: post #75
amarant wrote: post #68

I've heard it said that the main difference between being employed and being enslaved is that you can choose your master when you're employed. It's a bit hyperbolic to be sure, but one does wonder how far we are from going full circle here..

And you get paid. People that say that kind of shit are privileged morons.

Roman slaves got paid. In imperial Russia the slaves were paid.

American slavery institution is not representative of how this worked for thousands of years. In many societies you couldn’t just randomly kill a slave.

So Are you sure who are the morons?

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#82

Post by ClumsyPilot »

quartesixte wrote: post #79
dangus wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically the president who handles a lot of agency appointments and guidance is elected somewhat more democratically than the senate, who confirms federal judges. At least the electoral college roughly takes state population into account. The senate just assigns two senators to states with 580,000 people and then does the exact same for states with 38 million people.

Senators were designed as senior statesmen representing the interest of State Governments, and as a check against the popularly-elected Representatives in the House so that the smaller states could have a voice. That's why general public couldn't even vote for senators until the 17th amendment in 1913. I wonder from time to time the ramifications of turning Senators into basically super-representatives. I think it's…

> first-principles thinking

What does this mean? There are first principles in maths and physics, what are first principles in, what is this actually, political philosophy?

The first principles must be universally agreeable and indisputable, like 1 + 1= 2, what would be an example?

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#84

Post by quartesixte »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #82
quartesixte wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Senators were designed as senior statesmen representing the interest of State Governments, and as a check against the popularly-elected Representatives in the House so that the smaller states could have a voice. That's why general public couldn't even vote for senators until the 17th amendment in 1913. I wonder from time to time the ramifications of turning Senators into basically super-representatives. I think it's…

> first-principles thinking What does this mean? There are first principles in maths and physics, what are first principles in, what is this actually, political philosophy? The first principles must be universally agreeable and indisputable, like 1 + 1= 2, what would be an example?

US Constitutional Law and the very specific field it has created. So, in this case, Articles I, II, and III of the US Constitution + 27 amendments.

Which, I concede doesn't fall under a narrow-definition of First Principles thinking but I think the term has been meme'd enough to allow for some play here.

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#85

Post by ClumsyPilot »

fallingknife wrote: post #73
dangus wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With possibly a lifetime appointment, too. IMO the administrative state is a unique little corner of meritocracy in a political system that is full of bad incentives. Congresspeople use donor money to get elected and are incentivized to listen non-constituents with the biggest pocketbooks. The president is elected by the people in similar big money elections with primaries controlled by the political party apparatus.…

[flagged]

If the task at hand is to through a list 125 possible additives to baby food and ban the harmful ones, I would rather trust administrative state than congressmen, at least they aren’t going to be sellouts. Much of the job is boring, not glorious and not that complicated.

Also, $800 million is not an impressive amount of money .Compare to cost of political mistakes

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#86

Post by theshrike79 »

foobarkey wrote: post #83

In Europe if you want to force a non-compete you need to pay full salary for the duration, so if someone enforced non compete for 5 years I could sit home and play games while earning salary

AFAIK this is only valid if the non-compete effectively prevents you from working in your profession.

Which is most of the time, granted.

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#87

Post by flanked-evergl »

amarant wrote: post #68

I've heard it said that the main difference between being employed and being enslaved is that you can choose your master when you're employed. It's a bit hyperbolic to be sure, but one does wonder how far we are from going full circle here..

That is not the main difference, for more information about the concept see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#88

Post by flanked-evergl »

lionkor wrote: post #72
amarant wrote: post #68

I've heard it said that the main difference between being employed and being enslaved is that you can choose your master when you're employed. It's a bit hyperbolic to be sure, but one does wonder how far we are from going full circle here..

In other first world countries it's certainly different. In Germany everyone gets paid time off, which is separate from paid sick time (there is usually no hard limit, but some fair use policy applies in some jobs). I can't be fired for random reasons on the spot - if I get fired for random reasons, they still have to pay me for a 1-3 month period that I work while I look for a new job. Firing on the spot is only leg…

No American feels enslaved in any meaningful sense of the word. Americans have it better than 99.999% of all humans who ever lived, and it's not particularly close.

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#89

Post by flanked-evergl »

linotype wrote: post #76
lionkor wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other first world countries it's certainly different. In Germany everyone gets paid time off, which is separate from paid sick time (there is usually no hard limit, but some fair use policy applies in some jobs). I can't be fired for random reasons on the spot - if I get fired for random reasons, they still have to pay me for a 1-3 month period that I work while I look for a new job. Firing on the spot is only leg…

No, six to ten states (mostly small, red states with shitty economies) that aren’t aligned with the majority of Americans elect the President and inflict their misery on the rest of us. Believe me, most people in states that matter want universal healthcare (which we already almost have, just in the most convoluted and corporate-fleece way possible), vacation and sick leave.

> Believe me, most people in states that matter want universal healthcare (which we already almost have, just in the most convoluted and corporate-fleece way possible), vacation and sick leave.

In a federal system, as the US is, these are all things you can implement on the state level. You do not need to win at a national level to implement it.

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#90

Post by brightball »

theshrike79 wrote: post #86
foobarkey wrote: post #83

In Europe if you want to force a non-compete you need to pay full salary for the duration, so if someone enforced non compete for 5 years I could sit home and play games while earning salary

AFAIK this is only valid if the non-compete effectively prevents you from working in your profession. Which is most of the time, granted.

I was told by an attorney years ago that non-competes were only enforceable if they had a reasonably defined scope and specifically were unenforceable in Right to Work states if it effectively prevented you from working at all.

Reasonable scope was something like max 2 years, specific distance from current office that wasn’t excessive (couple of miles) or had specifics about taking existing customers.

Post reply on HN