4 ms·

Until "everywhere else" bans non-competes, like California does, California is unlikely to lose its position as the leader site and state for innovation: https:

by vwoolf 3y ago

Until "everywhere else" bans non-competes, like California does, California is unlikely to lose its position as the leader site and state for innovation: https://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/silicon-valley-keeps-winning-because-non-competes-limit-innovation/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/silicon-valley-keeps-winni..., despite California's many policy missteps from housing restrictions to failure to enforce basic law and order.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
Such an own goal by Washington and New York leaders to not get rid of non competes. They were both millimeters away.
- aetimmes 3y ago
  The financial sector in NY was never going to let a non-compete ban happen.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    It came down to one person’s signature. If the industry had that much control, it would have stalled in the legislature. Seems pretty risky to let it come down to one person. Edit: If anything, the big tech companies did a better job in Washington by allowing the non compete ban to pass for only jobs under $100k per year salaries. That way, political support is neutered in the future for any broad non compete ban that would actually affect them. For context, the legal minimum annual salary in Washington will be $90k in a few years.
    - Spooky23 3y ago
      New York is 1990s Indiana with NYC attached. Industrial powerhouses like Syracuse, Buffalo, etc are rust belt territory now. With the export of American industry and the consolidation of all things agriculture, the solvency of the entirety of the state budget is almost entirely dependent it just on financial services, but specifically on income tax on Wall St bonuses. No sane governor would sign that bill. The death spiral of agriculture in particular is incredible. Through incredibly incompetent policy decisions, entire regions of rural America are country ghettos, with our food supply dependent on a depleted aquifer in the Midwest and the fickle Colorado River.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
iancmceachern 3y ago
100% this The culture this has created and kept going over the last decades is exactly why. It's not because the laws anymore, it's because the change in the law so many years ago changed the culture, changed the attitude about what was "right" Andover the needle towards favoring innovation and employee talent maximization over their career rather than focus on the profits of individual companies or the output of the company. Its so worker focused, worker aligned - and in an industry that relies heavily on thought leadership type work, that is a very attractive work environment for those types of people.
firesteelrain 3y ago
Been in Tech for 20 years and never encountered a non compete clause
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  I had one for the first time in 20+ years for my last gig out of a Midwest state. Said I wouldn’t take the job if it was forced. They folded.
- sidlls 3y ago
  There were non-compete clauses in every employment contract I saw when I started my software career (east coast circa 2005). Companies even tried to weasel them into the independent work contracts they signed with me when I did independent contracting for a while.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  As someone who's been in tech in Texas for nearly 25 years, I've always had to sign a non-compete as a full time employee. It's all state/locale dependent.
- photonbeam 3y ago
  Banks have asked me for one, when all the job is writing internal tools, no deep trading secrets
  - echelon 3y ago
    Probably easier to apply across the board instead of on a per-role basis.
- pengaru 3y ago
  It's not just the non-competes though. California explicitly protects ownership of inventions made on your own time/equipment[0]. AFAIK other states tend to default to employer ownership of inventions. This alone is a huge win for Cali when it comes to HN/maker type folks... [0] https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2010/lab/2870-2872.html https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2010/lab/2870-2872.h...
vajrabum 3y ago
Housing in San Francisco, the Penninsula and Silicon Valley is constrained by the fact that it's rich, already built out and there isn't anywhere else to expand to at the edge of town because of water or hills. People commute from outlying areas such as Tracy and Modesto where there's been massive construction of housing over the last 30 years.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > there isn't anywhere else to expand to at the edge of town because of water or hills San Francisco has massive infill potential [1]. Its limited, expensive housing is a policy choice. [1] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jake-Wegmann/publication/254397240_Yes_in_My_Backyard_Mobilizing_the_Market_for_Secondary_Units/links/5c4cd457a6fdccd6b5cc2362/Yes-in-My-Backyard-Mobilizing-the-Market-for-Secondary-Units.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jake-Wegmann/publicatio...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  New York is rich and yet can still build up. Bay Area NIMBYs are just next level.
- photonbeam 3y ago
  That’s because of the giant amounts of land to the east of 280 that you’re not allow to build on Convenient for existing land owners..
- kccqzy 3y ago
  Already built out land should be made denser. I don't want the area to be expanded; that will make the area worse for walkability and bikeability; I don't want to see super commuters commuting from Tracy or Modesto because that's so much pollution, congestion, and misery; I also don't want to see the area's abundance of large open space disappear. We should instead make the current built land denser by strongly encouraging existing single-family homes to have ADUs or be converted into duplexes and fourplexes. We should require all new residential construction to be multi-family units meeting density standards. We should set minimum height rules for new residential buildings to encourage vertical use of space.
sspiff 3y ago
I live in a European country, and while non-competes are legal, if a company chooses to exercise them, they are also forced to continue to pay you for the duration, and you can still take a non-competing job in the mean time. Non-competes are also judged rather narrowly: they can't ban you from working for any tech company, they need to operate in the same space as the one you worked in before.

by vwoolf 3y ago

lotsofpulp 3y ago

Such an own goal by Washington and New York leaders to not get rid of non competes. They were both millimeters away.

aetimmes 3y ago
The financial sector in NY was never going to let a non-compete ban happen.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  It came down to one person’s signature. If the industry had that much control, it would have stalled in the legislature. Seems pretty risky to let it come down to one person. Edit: If anything, the big tech companies did a better job in Washington by allowing the non compete ban to pass for only jobs under $100k per year salaries. That way, political support is neutered in the future for any broad non compete ban that would actually affect them. For context, the legal minimum annual salary in Washington will be $90k in a few years.
  - Spooky23 3y ago
    New York is 1990s Indiana with NYC attached. Industrial powerhouses like Syracuse, Buffalo, etc are rust belt territory now. With the export of American industry and the consolidation of all things agriculture, the solvency of the entirety of the state budget is almost entirely dependent it just on financial services, but specifically on income tax on Wall St bonuses. No sane governor would sign that bill. The death spiral of agriculture in particular is incredible. Through incredibly incompetent policy decisions, entire regions of rural America are country ghettos, with our food supply dependent on a depleted aquifer in the Midwest and the fickle Colorado River.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]

iancmceachern 3y ago

100% this The culture this has created and kept going over the last decades is exactly why. It's not because the laws anymore, it's because the change in the law so many years ago changed the culture, changed the attitude about what was "right" Andover the needle towards favoring innovation and employee talent maximization over their career rather than focus on the profits of individual companies or the output of the company. Its so worker focused, worker aligned - and in an industry that relies heavily on thought leadership type work, that is a very attractive work environment for those types of people.

firesteelrain 3y ago

Been in Tech for 20 years and never encountered a non compete clause

toomuchtodo 3y ago
I had one for the first time in 20+ years for my last gig out of a Midwest state. Said I wouldn’t take the job if it was forced. They folded.
sidlls 3y ago
There were non-compete clauses in every employment contract I saw when I started my software career (east coast circa 2005). Companies even tried to weasel them into the independent work contracts they signed with me when I did independent contracting for a while.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
As someone who's been in tech in Texas for nearly 25 years, I've always had to sign a non-compete as a full time employee. It's all state/locale dependent.
photonbeam 3y ago
Banks have asked me for one, when all the job is writing internal tools, no deep trading secrets
- echelon 3y ago
  Probably easier to apply across the board instead of on a per-role basis.
pengaru 3y ago
It's not just the non-competes though. California explicitly protects ownership of inventions made on your own time/equipment[0]. AFAIK other states tend to default to employer ownership of inventions. This alone is a huge win for Cali when it comes to HN/maker type folks... [0] https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2010/lab/2870-2872.html https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2010/lab/2870-2872.h...

vajrabum 3y ago

Housing in San Francisco, the Penninsula and Silicon Valley is constrained by the fact that it's rich, already built out and there isn't anywhere else to expand to at the edge of town because of water or hills. People commute from outlying areas such as Tracy and Modesto where there's been massive construction of housing over the last 30 years.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> there isn't anywhere else to expand to at the edge of town because of water or hills San Francisco has massive infill potential [1]. Its limited, expensive housing is a policy choice. [1] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jake-Wegmann/publication/254397240_Yes_in_My_Backyard_Mobilizing_the_Market_for_Secondary_Units/links/5c4cd457a6fdccd6b5cc2362/Yes-in-My-Backyard-Mobilizing-the-Market-for-Secondary-Units.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jake-Wegmann/publicatio...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
bobthepanda 3y ago
New York is rich and yet can still build up. Bay Area NIMBYs are just next level.
photonbeam 3y ago
That’s because of the giant amounts of land to the east of 280 that you’re not allow to build on Convenient for existing land owners..
kccqzy 3y ago
Already built out land should be made denser. I don't want the area to be expanded; that will make the area worse for walkability and bikeability; I don't want to see super commuters commuting from Tracy or Modesto because that's so much pollution, congestion, and misery; I also don't want to see the area's abundance of large open space disappear. We should instead make the current built land denser by strongly encouraging existing single-family homes to have ADUs or be converted into duplexes and fourplexes. We should require all new residential construction to be multi-family units meeting density standards. We should set minimum height rules for new residential buildings to encourage vertical use of space.

sspiff 3y ago

I live in a European country, and while non-competes are legal, if a company chooses to exercise them, they are also forced to continue to pay you for the duration, and you can still take a non-competing job in the mean time. Non-competes are also judged rather narrowly: they can't ban you from working for any tech company, they need to operate in the same space as the one you worked in before.