Workers have mechanisms to balance that power. E.g., forming a union, which could ensure the contract is more fair. I don't know what to make of the fact that they don't use them.

In your opinion, is there a reason why something like a union couldn't be used to negate or modify non-compete clauses?

You are right, they do. But in practice it doesn't materialize. The other problem with "just create a union" besides the risk involved and inequality of bargaining power in starting a union in the first place is that you typically create a bureaucratic institution which has its own drag on economic efficiency. Banning non-competes has no clear downside, but does have clear upside. It makes sense to allow workers to form unions and to also ban non-competes.

Those are all good points. I would probably push back on the idea that economic efficiency is treated as an end to itself, rather than a means to an end. There's a tipping point where increased economic efficiency isn't necessarily a net good for society overall.

I think part of me just laments the fact that previous generations took a much bigger risk to form unions and modern generations have largely let it fall to the wayside.

I would agree that treating economic efficiency as an end to itself isn't ideal - that creates lots of obvious problems. It's probably super efficient to have child labor, for example.

> I think part of me just laments the fact that previous generations took a much bigger risk to form unions and modern generations have largely let it fall to the wayside.

I agree, and it's frustrating not just here but in the political realm as well. I think the Greatest Generation came back from the war and took hold of, and created instutitions: universities, the FDA, the CDC, the FAA, the MacArthur Foundation (just a random thing that came to mind), and importantly unions that protected workers rights and living standards. In the political realm I recently volunteered as a poll worker - it was a ton of fun, truth be told albeit a long day. But many people, friends, family, etc. thought it was a bit weird. We can't have nice things if we don't take care of them or do the hard work of democracy (or unionization, or maintaining valuable institutions) if we don't actually do it.

I'm not sure where this apathy and angst crept in, but I bet suburbanization and social media helped create and subsequently accelerate it to the point where we have some serious problems that need to be addressed.

>suburbanization and social media

This is interesting. Can you expand on the how you think this changed the overall sentiment of civic responsibility?

I’m being flippant and I can expand more, but I’d say it amounts to this:

I sure hope there is parking at the protest

transaction costs & bundling effects.

Basically non-compete negatives for the worker don't outweigh the costs & downsides of forming a union -for just this issue-. Forming a union, negotiating, membership, etc all have transaction costs. Also unions come in a bundle with negative effects too (corruption, forced to go along with decisions where you are in the minority opinion, etc).

So if there was a super light weight union that only focused on non compete, then maybe it could level bargaining power. But since unions have a cost and come with downsides, it's not used in practice today.