There was a different kind of inflation, which is also real, before central banks, so no.

> In setting monetary policy, the Committee seeks to mitigate deviations of inflation from its longer-run goal and deviations of employment from the Committee's assessments of its maximum level. These objectives are generally complementary. However, under circumstances in which the Committee judges that the objectives are not complementary, it follows a balanced approach in promoting them, taking into account the magnitude of the deviations and the potentially different time horizons over which employment and inflation are projected to return to levels judged consistent with its mandate. [1]

Employment is maximized within the limitations of excessive inflation and vice versa. It is well established that a scarcity of workers has a direct, measurable effect on inflation. Therefore, one could conclude that it would be impossible for the Fedral Reserve to allow for a significant scarcity of workers, which is required for low wage workers to have meaningful leverage in negotiations, as it would voilate the mandate to maintain stable prices(inflation) as set forth in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 [2]

To elaborate on this a bit. This it not so much a direct action of the Federal Reserve to create a scarcity of workers, as much as it is a result of a scarcity of workers causing inflation. That inflation would force the Fed to raise interest rates. Those rate hikes would slow the economy and would result in there no longer being a scarcity of workers.

The balance of the Federal Reserves two manadates, maximum employment and stable prices, results in about 4.25% unemployment(a slight scarcity) and 2% inflation(stable enough prices).[3] That is our current comporomise between stable prices and maximum employment.

[1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12848.htm

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act

[3] https://www.chicagofed.org/research/dual-mandate/dual-mandat...

The Federal Reserve manages inflation through credit. Inflation is used to reduce the value of fiat. Reducing the value of fiat requires you be able to invest to overcome inflation, or work more to recoup what's been artificially devalued.

Ergo, the Federal Reserve is economically coercing people to work who might otherwise not need to, or who might prefer to work less. "Maximizing employment". This would be fine with sane labor protections (a reasonable living minimum wage, minimum PTO/vacation/sick days, maternity/paternity leave, etc), but is disastrous without them. This is what happens when you maximize for employment and GDP versus quality of life.

For high demand positions it's not necessarily a matter of turning down the job.

As a tech worker, I've had success in negotiating contract amendments to limit the scope of non-competes or overly broad IP assignment clauses. Hiring takes a lot of time, and many employers are willing to budge on contract terms to save the expense/hassle of starting the recruiting process from scratch.

Obviously this is only possible if you work in an industry where you're sufficiently in-demand and thus have some negotiating power.

The next time a recession hits, you'll find no shortage of sober, skilled people, who will work for minimum wage.

Haven't you ever been a broke college grad looking for 3 months with no luck? I'm not exactly on the market right now, but there was a time when I'd take any offer, and making a principled stand over something like NDA/Non-Compete was simply out of the question for me. (And I felt strongly about it, but so did my parents who were growing quite tired of paying to keep me alive, and understandably.)

And what if the next job offer also requires a Non Compete?

You may go all the way through interviewing and accepting the offer, even until you show up on the first day before you find out they require you to sign this piece of paper.

Your options at that point are: (1) don't sign it, don't say anything about not signing it... (2) make a big deal about not signing it, maybe you even ask for more money because this was never part of the deal... (3) walk out.

The point is that after months of job searching and long, involved hiring processes, not everybody is at liberty to "just say no." You're looking for a job because you needed one.

Now sure, they may be the ones hiring because they need you just as badly, but you'll rarely be in a position to know that for sure.

I asked. Also I was a supervisor later on and did plenty of hiring myself.

The store level employees you are interacting with have no authority to change anything--there isn't even a process in place to contact someone with the authority to make changes.