Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ...
by nickff on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @03:27AM
(#12794580)
I think it is well known that there is information asymmetry in every transaction/deal/agreement involving more than one individual; saying that there is information asymmetry proves nothing. There is a highly regulated market for employees, and for employers. I didn't provide any evidence at all; I just asked if you agreed that in certain situations, it was possible for a non-compete ban to be anti-employee.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ...
by greglindahl on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @03:54AM
(#12794692)
You said "My first piece of evidence" and now "I didn't provide any evidence at all". Given all the downvotes you've gotten, I recommend that you sharpen your debating tactics. You'll probably get better engagement that way.
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ...
by nickff on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @04:08AM
(#12794751)
Ah I'm sorry, I got confused thinking that we had gone back to my comment on taneq's last parent of this branch.
I attribute the downvotes to the unpopularity of non-complete clauses on HN. In addition to that, most of the libertarian and right-leaning users seem to be in North America, so I can count on less sympathy from ~4-12 GMT. It is also possible that my writing has gotten substantially worse in the last few hours, but it seems unlikely that I am being more rude or unfair than I normally am.
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ...
by eli_gottlieb on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @11:58AM
(#12797536)
Mostly you're getting downvoted because you want to make legal policy based on what you suppose or imagine, rather than what you can demonstrate actually happens.
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ...
by michaelmrose on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @06:35AM
(#12795360)
It can't be anti employee. Employers don't pay more for employees with non competes they pay less. In the case of the fictional employees you mentioned previously both employers would have faced a more competitive market for employees resulting in higher wages.
The non compete is nearly entirely valuable in that it it depresses wages. In reality its entirely likely that between firm A and firm B neither has a whole lot of special sauce non competes mostly serve to keep each other from competing for employees thus driving up wages.