You’re misinformed about L1s

All L1 visas are internal transfers; they require extensive documentation of the role being performed outside the US for an extended period, and tie you to a specific set of responsibilities in the US; and they are not transferable once in the US - you can’t move to an L1 at another company, because you haven’t worked for that company outside the US. THe difference between a and b is just the kinds of roles that are eligible for transfer.

If you are on an L1 and you quit or are dismissed, you lose your immigration status and have to leave the US.

L1 are dual intent visas, which means you will be able to seek employment through sponsorship or green card application tho.

Since it’s much easier to get hired and potentially get sponsorship from within the US, So I’m guessing this is why Amazon added the non-compete.

> L1 are dual intent visas, which means you will be able to seek employment through sponsorship or green card application tho.

Green card application takes forever and is never certain. It will take years, all while you have to stay with the same employer (unlike with H1B visa). And if you are an Indian national, then it goes from "multiple years" to "closer to a decade or longer".

As for "through sponsorship", this has nothing to do with L1. "Sponsorship" means finding an employer that would be willing to file for an H1B visa for you. Whether you have an existing L1 visa or not has no bearing on that process. It is no easier for another employer to file for H1B visa if you already have an L1 visa. Finding a company willing to sponsor your H1B is the exact same process and difficulty with L1 visa as it is without one.

L1A is pretty much guaranteed a green card within a year(EB-1C), L1B is harder but also very much doable within the 5 years limit for B.

Overall if you come as an executive or managerial staff or are promoted to one within your employment you have a fairly easy green card to attain that H1B and many other visa holders don’t.

As for the rest don’t underestimate the value of local networking and recruitment.

Sorry, I meant that the second company would do a B visa for a person who they scouted on an L visa

California.

https://www.upcounsel.com/non-compete-california

I remember Apple and Google getting into trouble over non-compete several years back.

Yup. And it's one of the big reasons that Silicon Valley is a force in the world. Without the "Traitorous Eight" and the Fairchildren, things could have turned out very differently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traitorous_eight

I don’t this is true. With rent prices in SV getting out of control people have started leaving the city, with most heading to texas or further east. If the decision to live/work in CA was based around the protections provided by CA then why is the exodus starting?

Off the top of my head, a few reasons: After 60 years of growth we're hitting practical limits in terms of finding space for people. The technology we have created has made distance less important. And between outsourcing, tech oligopolies, and "blitzscaling" (where VCs burn money to destroy competition), it has lately become harder to jump ship and start a company.

Plus we're really talking about processes on different scales. Individuals moving elsewhere doesn't say much about the pace of creating companies to pursue novel innovations.

I'll also note that CA not having non-competes makes it easy for people to leave and start companies elsewhere. The real question is whether those new companies will create dynamic local scenes of their own, in the same way the Fairchildren did here. If they don't, and if Silicon Valley keeps being a hub of innovation, that's a great sign that banning noncompetes still matters.

To be clear, I’m not arguing against CA’s ban on non-competes. But the problem of rent prices isn’t due to SF running out of space, it’s due to increased regulation around permits [1]. And this directly affects the rate of innovation unless there is enough room to house the people needed for the innovation in the first place. Further, and this part is unclear on your position, the foundations of teleconferencing we’re made outside of SF, and used by SF companies to create things like zoom. To say SF invented teleconferencing is a stretch. And lastly starting a company isn’t hard. Invest time into another project, and eventually you’ll create a business from it. VCs shouldn’t be step 1. New scenes have also popped up elsewhere, Hyderabad, Austin TX, Tel Aviv so Im not sure where that part is coming from.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_housing_shortage

* s/had to do its own L1 for them/had to do its own B visa for them/