5 ms·

> This sounds like a bad idea if you're trying to convince people from NYC to move to FL, which sounds like a bad idea for the businesses it's presumably trying

> This sounds like a bad idea if you're trying to convince people from NYC to move to FL, which sounds like a bad idea for the businesses it's presumably trying to serve. Employees, yes. But the execs at these big firms would love to have more control over their best people so they have less leverage Employees unfortunately need employers to pay them, so they will take the deal they can get If your options all move to Florida, guess where you’re moving

codeddesign 1y ago
This is limited to industry category and employee’s keep their current pay. How is this bad?
- ysofunny 1y ago
  their current pay is getting increasingly worthless given inflationary trends
- stego-tech 1y ago
  Seriously? HN and the tech news sector have exhaustively covered the abuse and exploitation of noncompetes inside and outside of tech for the past decade. They protect employers at the expense of employees, consistently fail to provide reasonable compensation for lengthy agreements, and are regularly exploited by bad actors to harm current and former employees by making them accept lower wages and worse working conditions. Even fifteen minutes of casual reading through old threads here should answer this question for you. The only supporters of non-competes tend to be those who do not view employees as people, but as proprietary property. If your company information is so sensitive that losing a worker would leave you vulnerable, then the solution is to compensate that employee well enough that they don’t see the need to leave and take on that additional risk.
  - jepj57 1y ago
    If only people weren't forced to sign non-compete agreements... seriously, you don't like em, don't sign em.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - thefaux 1y ago
      If I walk across the desert and find a house on an oasis and the owner offers me water on the condition that I first put a chain on my ankle that is tethered to the property, do I really have the option to say no?
      - portaouflop 1y ago
        Yes and to stay within your metaphor you can just go to the house next door and get water without being chained up
        jdenning 1y ago
        What if all the houses are following the “standard industry practice” of chaining anyone who asks for water? What if refusing to follow this practice means that you can’t obtain funding to build a house?
    - stego-tech 1y ago
      The freedom not to sign is not the same as the liberty to pass up an opportunity for survival. Your snippy quip just makes you sound like an ignorant fool who can’t defend their position, let alone coherently argue against others.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    > If your company information is so sensitive that losing a worker would leave you vulnerable, then the solution is to compensate that employee well enough that they don’t see the need to leave and take on that additional risk. Yes, this is what I think people are missing: non-competes harm the free labor market. Labor is a resource like any other, and as such there's a market. If the labor is highly valuable that means we should value it as such, in dollars. If we're not doing that then that means something is distorting or otherwise breaking the free market. I would never expect to buy a car for 5,000 dollars. But, for some reason, with labor, everyone's expectations of how a market works suddenly need not apply. Why is that? The problem is if we forcibly lower wages via non-competes then that harms the labor market as a whole. Yes, companies get to save a few bucks, but in exchange the expectations are broken. This is actually self-destructive. Why? Because companies, as much as labor, relies on those expectations. Now, you can't hire better workers for more money because we've detached monetary value from the actual value of labor. Oops! You want the best of the best? You can't do that do anymore. On the surface, non-competes appear to benefit companies, but they don't. It's an illusion, and a seductive one.
- coev 1y ago
  Bonus is a very significant component (often the majority) of comp that gets cut when you're under a noncompete in these kinds of jobs. Yes I understand that's a "world's smallest violin" problem at these scales.
- bigbadfeline 1y ago
  > This is limited to industry category and employee’s keep their current pay. How is this bad? I don't know... former communist countries had restrictions precisely like this one, it was an integral part of their regulations. Former feudal countries too, maybe a bit harsher. The land of the serfs and category 5 hurricanes - sounds sweet. > and employee’s keep their current pay Oh yeah, inflation is just starting - to pay for the big bubblegum bill, in real terms that pay is going down 10%/yr, and the serfs cannot renegotiate.
Yeul 1y ago
The US is going full Cyberpunk! After 20 years of service you are eligible for citizenship of the Corporate zone and one child permit.
- Analemma_ 1y ago
  > and one child permit The way discourse has been trending lately, I suspect it will be just the opposite. Florida and Texas will probably be first to impose one-child-minimum policies, with heavy penalties for noncompliance.
  - atmavatar 1y ago
    They're equally as likely to reintroduce the medieval policy of prima nocta.
  - ryandrake 1y ago
    Yea, I was gonna say! The current administration has this weird fixation on "babies" and encouraging people "having babies" and incentivizing "baby production" with these new savings accounts that are essentially baby bonds, and weirdly trying to denigrate childless people. Why this sudden politicization of childbearing?
    - davkan 1y ago
      Well population decline is a very real threat and with the conservative scapegoating of immigration (the only thing keeping the US growing) they need to get labor somewhere. Plus it fits right in with their anti-woman and anti-lgbt sentiments. Good god-fearing Christians should be having children after all. But of course child poverty and healthcare is not their concern. Labor should be hungry and desperate.
      - ryandrake 1y ago
        I remember when the "threat" was out-of-control overpopulation. Most developed countries have finally solved that, and now the "threat" is underpopulation? It sounds like we're just justifying everything as a threat. In any well-run society that isn't a ponzi scheme that relies on ever-increasing labor, population decline is what you want, given the extreme environmental footprint of every single person. The Earth has fixed and limited resources, so the fewer people competing for them, the better.

codeddesign 1y ago

This is limited to industry category and employee’s keep their current pay. How is this bad?

ysofunny 1y ago
their current pay is getting increasingly worthless given inflationary trends
stego-tech 1y ago
Seriously? HN and the tech news sector have exhaustively covered the abuse and exploitation of noncompetes inside and outside of tech for the past decade. They protect employers at the expense of employees, consistently fail to provide reasonable compensation for lengthy agreements, and are regularly exploited by bad actors to harm current and former employees by making them accept lower wages and worse working conditions. Even fifteen minutes of casual reading through old threads here should answer this question for you. The only supporters of non-competes tend to be those who do not view employees as people, but as proprietary property. If your company information is so sensitive that losing a worker would leave you vulnerable, then the solution is to compensate that employee well enough that they don’t see the need to leave and take on that additional risk.
- jepj57 1y ago
  If only people weren't forced to sign non-compete agreements... seriously, you don't like em, don't sign em.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - thefaux 1y ago
    If I walk across the desert and find a house on an oasis and the owner offers me water on the condition that I first put a chain on my ankle that is tethered to the property, do I really have the option to say no?
    - portaouflop 1y ago
      Yes and to stay within your metaphor you can just go to the house next door and get water without being chained up
      - jdenning 1y ago
        What if all the houses are following the “standard industry practice” of chaining anyone who asks for water? What if refusing to follow this practice means that you can’t obtain funding to build a house?
  - stego-tech 1y ago
    The freedom not to sign is not the same as the liberty to pass up an opportunity for survival. Your snippy quip just makes you sound like an ignorant fool who can’t defend their position, let alone coherently argue against others.
- const_cast 1y ago
  > If your company information is so sensitive that losing a worker would leave you vulnerable, then the solution is to compensate that employee well enough that they don’t see the need to leave and take on that additional risk. Yes, this is what I think people are missing: non-competes harm the free labor market. Labor is a resource like any other, and as such there's a market. If the labor is highly valuable that means we should value it as such, in dollars. If we're not doing that then that means something is distorting or otherwise breaking the free market. I would never expect to buy a car for 5,000 dollars. But, for some reason, with labor, everyone's expectations of how a market works suddenly need not apply. Why is that? The problem is if we forcibly lower wages via non-competes then that harms the labor market as a whole. Yes, companies get to save a few bucks, but in exchange the expectations are broken. This is actually self-destructive. Why? Because companies, as much as labor, relies on those expectations. Now, you can't hire better workers for more money because we've detached monetary value from the actual value of labor. Oops! You want the best of the best? You can't do that do anymore. On the surface, non-competes appear to benefit companies, but they don't. It's an illusion, and a seductive one.
coev 1y ago
Bonus is a very significant component (often the majority) of comp that gets cut when you're under a noncompete in these kinds of jobs. Yes I understand that's a "world's smallest violin" problem at these scales.
bigbadfeline 1y ago
> This is limited to industry category and employee’s keep their current pay. How is this bad? I don't know... former communist countries had restrictions precisely like this one, it was an integral part of their regulations. Former feudal countries too, maybe a bit harsher. The land of the serfs and category 5 hurricanes - sounds sweet. > and employee’s keep their current pay Oh yeah, inflation is just starting - to pay for the big bubblegum bill, in real terms that pay is going down 10%/yr, and the serfs cannot renegotiate.

Yeul 1y ago

The US is going full Cyberpunk! After 20 years of service you are eligible for citizenship of the Corporate zone and one child permit.

Analemma_ 1y ago
> and one child permit The way discourse has been trending lately, I suspect it will be just the opposite. Florida and Texas will probably be first to impose one-child-minimum policies, with heavy penalties for noncompliance.
- atmavatar 1y ago
  They're equally as likely to reintroduce the medieval policy of prima nocta.
- ryandrake 1y ago
  Yea, I was gonna say! The current administration has this weird fixation on "babies" and encouraging people "having babies" and incentivizing "baby production" with these new savings accounts that are essentially baby bonds, and weirdly trying to denigrate childless people. Why this sudden politicization of childbearing?
  - davkan 1y ago
    Well population decline is a very real threat and with the conservative scapegoating of immigration (the only thing keeping the US growing) they need to get labor somewhere. Plus it fits right in with their anti-woman and anti-lgbt sentiments. Good god-fearing Christians should be having children after all. But of course child poverty and healthcare is not their concern. Labor should be hungry and desperate.
    - ryandrake 1y ago
      I remember when the "threat" was out-of-control overpopulation. Most developed countries have finally solved that, and now the "threat" is underpopulation? It sounds like we're just justifying everything as a threat. In any well-run society that isn't a ponzi scheme that relies on ever-increasing labor, population decline is what you want, given the extreme environmental footprint of every single person. The Earth has fixed and limited resources, so the fewer people competing for them, the better.