4 ms·
> In a state that allows noncompetes, it's in pretty much every employer's interest to use them and enforce them as much as they can If I may nitpick, I'd argu
by __derek__ 9y ago
> In a state that allows noncompetes, it's in pretty much every employer's interest to use them and enforce them as much as they can
If I may nitpick, I'd argue that it only appears to be in employers' best interest to use/enforce them, in the same way that the butts-in-seats/time-in-office metrics are used to gauge performance. It makes sense in a first-pass estimation but breaks down when one considers the cultural impacts. People tend to dislike feeling powerless, which is exactly the effect of non-competes.
- ScottBurson 9y agoI agree that it's short-sighted, not only in the way you describe, but also in a much more direct way. While noncompetes make it easier to retain existing employees, and pay them less, by the same token they make it harder to hire new ones. This ties into the psychology of loss aversion [0]: people pay much more attention to what they have and could lose, than what they don't have but could gain. One could argue that outlawing noncompetes is important to protect society from the effects of this almost instinctive irrationality in human psychology. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion