4 ms·
This article is just NYTimes grasping at straws, trying to conjure a narrative that’s completely foreign to 99.999% low wage workers. Non-compete clauses are n
by xyzzyz 3y ago
This article is just NYTimes grasping at straws, trying to conjure a narrative that’s completely foreign to 99.999% low wage workers.
Non-compete clauses are not “concerningly common”, these are in fact so rare that NYT couldn’t even point out to a single example of non-compete actually affecting low-wage workers: their leading example of Jimmy Johns is not something that ever been enforced, and I seriously doubt that any worker there is even aware of this clause in the contract (low wage workers don’t read these anyway).
- anonymouskimmer 3y agohttps://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2022/article/noncompete-agreements-bargaining-and-wages-evidence-from-the-national-longitudinal-survey-of-youth-1997.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2022/article/noncompete-agreeme... This is data from a longitudinal survey of which the respondents were 32-38 years old when in the 2017/2018 survey. Scroll down to Table 1 and Chart 2 and it looks as though non-compete agreements affect about 1 in 11 people who make approximately minimum wage (presuming these self-reports are accurate), and increase in frequency from there. ----- Non-competes for job creators can indirectly impact low-wage workers by preventing a job-providing business from opening in their area. And while trickle-down economics isn't that powerful of a force, it does exist. When non-competes suppress higher-level wages this has a knock-on effect on lower wages, and a side-effect of reducing the discretionary income the higher wage people can spend into the lower-wage economy.