3 ms·

It is bad for a state - at least in relative terms - if it has a good thing and suddenly every state has that good thing. It means that people that might have o

by benced 2y ago

It is bad for a state - at least in relative terms - if it has a good thing and suddenly every state has that good thing. It means that people that might have once moved to California for its laws will no longer do so.

_akhe 2y ago
That mentality is like saying "I'm only rich if others are poor" - you can of course still be well off, even when others occasionally catch up, and maybe better off if the tide lifts all boats. Also what you say doesn't go against the point about signaling. There's something to being on the cutting edge vs not. > people that might have once moved to California for its laws will no longer do so Which is a huge demographic right? After all, most people don't come to California for its incredible beaches, paychecks, food, diversity, entertainment, etc. it's our wonderful laws that attract everyone, right?
- benced 2y ago
  I am making a diagnostic statement that is true. You are incorrectly inferring that I think this FTC action is therefore bad which I did not say anywhere. > Which is a huge demographic right? After all, most people don't come to California for its incredible beaches, paychecks, food, diversity, entertainment, etc. it's our wonderful laws that attract everyone, right? Yes, that's why I expressed uncertainty on how bad this would be for California.
  - _akhe 2y ago
    > You are incorrectly inferring that I think this is therefore bad which I did not say Did you not say in your opener: > It is bad for a state I should have appended the other statement with /s That is to say, people don't typically move to California because they love the legal system, it's typically for other reasons like our weather, economy (jobs), diversity, schools (difficult to find hard data, but just search for it and see what things you see listed). Even in the case where someone does base their moving decision on a state's stance on entrepreneurial mobility, California being many years ahead of this FTC decision would only make it a better candidate, not worse. Others passing the same measures years later does not make California seem "bad" in comparison. It would signal that they're just ahead of the curve on the issue, so I think your take is flawed.
    - benced 2y ago
      Yes, it is bad for the state of California. That is a different question from is it good or bad for the FTC to do this.
      - _akhe 2y ago
        Most hilarious attempt at moving goalposts I've seen all week - this conversation has been about whether or not its bad for California the whole time, now you're switching to say whether or not its good for the FTC! Just funny
        benced 2y ago
        I said "I suspect this is bad for California" which I stand by. That statement says absolutely nothing about whether or not I think this is a good decision by the FTC. However, you treated it like I was against this action by the FTC and started arguing about why it's good to ban noncompetes and why it's good California is on the leading edge of such policies. As it happens, I am very against noncompetes and I very much like this action by the FTC. You should have read more closely and shouldn't have assumed the opposite.
        _akhe 2y ago
        I have to remind you that your original comment was: It is bad for a state - at least in relative terms - if it has a good thing and suddenly every state has that good thing. You were not talking about the FTC, you were talking about the state. Furthermore, the parent comment to which you're replying was: It's not bad when people are copying you, it signals that California is ahead of the curve on the issue... which was a reply to I suspect this is bad for California We were all - and especially you - very clearly talking about whether or not it's bad for California. Only later in the conversation did you start to shift your statements to seem as if you're talking about the FTC. Moving the goalpost fallacy: Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other evidence is demanded. e.g. "It might be bad for California, but not the FTC", "you can't read", "incorrectly inferring", "assuming" etc. Nope, none of those, just sticking to the topic.

by benced 2y ago

_akhe 2y ago

That mentality is like saying "I'm only rich if others are poor" - you can of course still be well off, even when others occasionally catch up, and maybe better off if the tide lifts all boats. Also what you say doesn't go against the point about signaling. There's something to being on the cutting edge vs not. > people that might have once moved to California for its laws will no longer do so Which is a huge demographic right? After all, most people don't come to California for its incredible beaches, paychecks, food, diversity, entertainment, etc. it's our wonderful laws that attract everyone, right?

benced 2y ago
I am making a diagnostic statement that is true. You are incorrectly inferring that I think this FTC action is therefore bad which I did not say anywhere. > Which is a huge demographic right? After all, most people don't come to California for its incredible beaches, paychecks, food, diversity, entertainment, etc. it's our wonderful laws that attract everyone, right? Yes, that's why I expressed uncertainty on how bad this would be for California.
- _akhe 2y ago
  > You are incorrectly inferring that I think this is therefore bad which I did not say Did you not say in your opener: > It is bad for a state I should have appended the other statement with /s That is to say, people don't typically move to California because they love the legal system, it's typically for other reasons like our weather, economy (jobs), diversity, schools (difficult to find hard data, but just search for it and see what things you see listed). Even in the case where someone does base their moving decision on a state's stance on entrepreneurial mobility, California being many years ahead of this FTC decision would only make it a better candidate, not worse. Others passing the same measures years later does not make California seem "bad" in comparison. It would signal that they're just ahead of the curve on the issue, so I think your take is flawed.
  - benced 2y ago
    Yes, it is bad for the state of California. That is a different question from is it good or bad for the FTC to do this.
    - _akhe 2y ago
      Most hilarious attempt at moving goalposts I've seen all week - this conversation has been about whether or not its bad for California the whole time, now you're switching to say whether or not its good for the FTC! Just funny
      - benced 2y ago
        I said "I suspect this is bad for California" which I stand by. That statement says absolutely nothing about whether or not I think this is a good decision by the FTC. However, you treated it like I was against this action by the FTC and started arguing about why it's good to ban noncompetes and why it's good California is on the leading edge of such policies. As it happens, I am very against noncompetes and I very much like this action by the FTC. You should have read more closely and shouldn't have assumed the opposite.
        _akhe 2y ago
        I have to remind you that your original comment was: It is bad for a state - at least in relative terms - if it has a good thing and suddenly every state has that good thing. You were not talking about the FTC, you were talking about the state. Furthermore, the parent comment to which you're replying was: It's not bad when people are copying you, it signals that California is ahead of the curve on the issue... which was a reply to I suspect this is bad for California We were all - and especially you - very clearly talking about whether or not it's bad for California. Only later in the conversation did you start to shift your statements to seem as if you're talking about the FTC. Moving the goalpost fallacy: Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other evidence is demanded. e.g. "It might be bad for California, but not the FTC", "you can't read", "incorrectly inferring", "assuming" etc. Nope, none of those, just sticking to the topic.