> I am not sure how this kind of role would work in a world of no non-competes but I suspect it would be suboptimal for everyone.

In your example, non competes seem to be optimal for the hedge fund investors, but I fail to see how it was optimal for everyone.

California has been pumping out quite a stream of “interesting jobs” and interesting businesses in a world of no non competes.

//but I fail to see how it was optimal for everyone.

It was also optimal for me as the employee because the fund could (a) hire me and (b) structure my role in a way that I could quickly learn and make impact which (c) enabled me to earn what I want.

Without the non-compete, the role/hire would not have been possible and would have to be structured in some less optimal way.

Like I said, if I didn't think this role was even w the non compete I'd have done something else.

I don't know what the role was but I'm 100% sure that's not true at all. there are 0 roles that would disappear if non competes became illegal. 0

The onboarding was optimal for you, having the non-compete was not optimal for you. The ideal situation would be to have that great onboarding experience while also not having a non-compete, something that companies in California do all the time.

Non-Competes are absolutely sprung on employees and I am an example of that. The company I worked for was acquired and the 2 year non-competes were high-pressure "Sign it or you're fired" conversations. So I sit at the same desk, doing the same work, for the same compensation and can now not take another job with anyone doing work in my field.

> The bottom line is, a non compete is not something that springs on you.

It's pretty standard now for employers to spring on you a previously-unmentioned non-compete clause at the time that you're onboarding. I've learned to ask for it before accepting an offer but I don't think most employees know to do that.

I'm a hardcore capitalist and I think non-competes have a very valid purpose in a limited set of circumstances. But the ubiquitous use right now is to make it harder for employees to leave.

I can get behind that. Non-competes between two consenting adults - great. If presentations are shady and opaque, that's a different story and a problem (and I would say that about any attribute of the employment contract that isn't easy to understand upfront)

After you took the FAANG job did you still receive money for the non-compete?

The way it worked (in my case at least) is that as part of my signing on with the fund, I consented to their ability to block my employment with anyone for 2 years post departure (technically, they could have blocked the FAANG job but there'd be no reason to - and similarly they could have approved a job in finance if it was sufficiently removed from what I was doing.)

There was no "money for the non-compete" involved, other than perhaps the premium baked into my compensation to begin with to make the deal attractive.

yeah if you've switched sectors then you clearly did not get the "secret sauce" lol

Markets would be better and more efficient with that information public. Also, no need for a few people to rack up billions by holding secrets

Think about sota deep learning models. Much better that everyone knows about hot chat gpt works.

Sure, and when you invest millions into developing the financial models (or GPT-like models) - you are welcome to release them into the public domain if you wish.

However you don't get to dictate what the people who have actually invested the resources get to do with them, including what conditions they attach to who can be exposed to it (a la the non-compete). As an adult, I retain the option to not take the job with the non-compete.

I work for a market maker. Have a maximum possible one year NC. Thinking of doing something similar in case my firm slams me with NC > 6 months, when I resign.