5 ms·

There are some posters on here who take offense to the term 'poaching' This is the first article where I really understood that. Saying a non-compete defends a

There are some posters on here who take offense to the term 'poaching' This is the first article where I really understood that. Saying a non-compete defends a big corporation from "poaching" (by ensuring a low level employee can't work in the same industry after quitting) shows an almost depraved pro-business bias.

Spivak 11y ago
You being too nice even calling the stance 'pro-business'. It's not even pro-business since labor can't flow to the place where they are the most valued. The non-compete situation is one of those prisoner's dilemma problems. If you're the only one with non-competes then you're better off because you can retain employees for less than their market rate, and if everyone except you uses non-competes then you lose your best talent and can't attract more. Thus the short-sighted decision is to use non-competes. But if everyone uses non-competes then labor doesn't flow at all, businesses can't attract talent, and then everyone is worse off.
- theseatoms 11y ago
  Good point. "Pro-capital" is often a more accurate and precise term than "pro-business."
  - marcosdumay 11y ago
    Pro entrenched interests. But that may be too clear to be useful. Not all capital is entrenched.
  - protomyth 11y ago
    Well its certainly not pro-capitalism as it inhibits a fair market. I just put it under cronyism. Entrenched interests are always a problem unless checked by laws or new technology.
    - rodgerd 11y ago
      > Well its certainly not pro-capitalism as it inhibits a fair market. Of all the delusions about economic system, the one that capitalism loves free markets is the most hilarious.
      - protomyth 11y ago
        Of all the delusions about economic system, the one that capitalism is about anything but free markets is the most hilarious You can mock it, but that's the whole point
        rodgerd 11y ago
        The point of capitalism is return on capital. The ultimate return will be generated by monopolies, duopolies, or cartels. Capitalism is fundamentally antagonistic to free markets.
        protomyth 11y ago
        you seem to be talking about what theseatoms mentioned, because capitalism is nicely summarized by Wikipedia as: Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets. In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment is determined by the owners of the factors of production in financial and capital markets, and prices and the distribution of goods are mainly determined by competition in the market.
    - theseatoms 11y ago
      Yes, "pro-capital" as in "favoring the owners of the means of production."
      - protomyth 11y ago
        Ok, thought you just missed the end. Yep, you are correct as it does favor the owners of the means of production. I wonder what groups would show up if a Representative tried to get a law nationally that mirrored CA's NDA rules?
- x5n1 11y ago
  And so the government should ban them outright.
  - marcosdumay 11y ago
    Hum... Not outright. Non-compete clauses were created because they are useful and important. Just look what countries that value their own peasants (should I say "democratic" here?) do. Make non-compete invalid unless it causes a transfer of money to the employee that is at least equal to his entire salary for the non-compete period.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Slaves are useful and important too. Unless the benefit clearly outweighs the harm, I don't see why they should be allowed. And I've seen nothing but vague handwaving about the benefits of them, while the harm is huge and obvious.
    - st3v3r 11y ago
      "Hum... Not outright. Non-compete clauses were created because they are useful and important." To who? Not me. I've never once benefited from a non-compete clause. They've always been used as a tool to threaten.
      - marcosdumay 11y ago
        They are important for the company, obviously. That's why the company should be required to pay you in order for them to be valid.
st3v3r 11y ago
Exactly. Why should I care more about a business being able to bully someone than a person not being able to feed their family?

Spivak 11y ago

You being too nice even calling the stance 'pro-business'. It's not even pro-business since labor can't flow to the place where they are the most valued. The non-compete situation is one of those prisoner's dilemma problems. If you're the only one with non-competes then you're better off because you can retain employees for less than their market rate, and if everyone except you uses non-competes then you lose your best talent and can't attract more. Thus the short-sighted decision is to use non-competes. But if everyone uses non-competes then labor doesn't flow at all, businesses can't attract talent, and then everyone is worse off.

theseatoms 11y ago
Good point. "Pro-capital" is often a more accurate and precise term than "pro-business."
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  Pro entrenched interests. But that may be too clear to be useful. Not all capital is entrenched.
- protomyth 11y ago
  Well its certainly not pro-capitalism as it inhibits a fair market. I just put it under cronyism. Entrenched interests are always a problem unless checked by laws or new technology.
  - rodgerd 11y ago
    > Well its certainly not pro-capitalism as it inhibits a fair market. Of all the delusions about economic system, the one that capitalism loves free markets is the most hilarious.
    - protomyth 11y ago
      Of all the delusions about economic system, the one that capitalism is about anything but free markets is the most hilarious You can mock it, but that's the whole point
      - rodgerd 11y ago
        The point of capitalism is return on capital. The ultimate return will be generated by monopolies, duopolies, or cartels. Capitalism is fundamentally antagonistic to free markets.
        protomyth 11y ago
        you seem to be talking about what theseatoms mentioned, because capitalism is nicely summarized by Wikipedia as: Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets. In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment is determined by the owners of the factors of production in financial and capital markets, and prices and the distribution of goods are mainly determined by competition in the market.
  - theseatoms 11y ago
    Yes, "pro-capital" as in "favoring the owners of the means of production."
    - protomyth 11y ago
      Ok, thought you just missed the end. Yep, you are correct as it does favor the owners of the means of production. I wonder what groups would show up if a Representative tried to get a law nationally that mirrored CA's NDA rules?
x5n1 11y ago
And so the government should ban them outright.
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  Hum... Not outright. Non-compete clauses were created because they are useful and important. Just look what countries that value their own peasants (should I say "democratic" here?) do. Make non-compete invalid unless it causes a transfer of money to the employee that is at least equal to his entire salary for the non-compete period.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Slaves are useful and important too. Unless the benefit clearly outweighs the harm, I don't see why they should be allowed. And I've seen nothing but vague handwaving about the benefits of them, while the harm is huge and obvious.
  - st3v3r 11y ago
    "Hum... Not outright. Non-compete clauses were created because they are useful and important." To who? Not me. I've never once benefited from a non-compete clause. They've always been used as a tool to threaten.
    - marcosdumay 11y ago
      They are important for the company, obviously. That's why the company should be required to pay you in order for them to be valid.

st3v3r 11y ago

Exactly. Why should I care more about a business being able to bully someone than a person not being able to feed their family?