Perhaps on the balance laws against non-competes are a good idea, but we should always be wary of claims of a free lunch.
Perhaps on the balance laws against non-competes are a good idea, but we should always be wary of claims of a free lunch.
As for them being necessary for certain jobs to exist, I’ll believe it when I see it. Different states are governed by different laws, so if it does happen examples shouldn’t be hard to find.
Now, this effect might be dwarfed by the upward pressure on compensation caused by greater availability of alternative jobs for employees, but it’s not obvious to me that would be the case. I’d be interested to see some empirical studies on the subject.
At this point even if a competitor jumped in and offered no non competes for the same wage, it wouldn't matter as no one can work for them. The mechanisms of capitalism require little to no barriers to entry and industry wide practices like non competes add large barriers which prevent the normal supply and demand mechanisms