It always baffles me how much resistance there is to banning noncompetes every time this is proposed, and how that resistance lives right alongside “we want to be the next Silicon Valley”, even though pretty much every analysis of “what’s Silicon Valley’s secret sauce” cites the unenforceability of noncompetes as one of the most important factors. But maybe the ship is turning very slowly.
Personally I think the way to go about this isn't to ban non-compete agreements but instead to get a couple of highly public cases where said non-compete is voided because the employee didn't receive anything of value for it. Once case law is clear that it requires 80% of the employees salary for the term of the lockup, companies will only require it where it makes sense rather than applying it willy-nilly due to the essentially free nature.
There's a lot of opposition to pretty much any nigh objectively good thing for the people. Just follow the money. It usually comes down to
1. lobbyists vying for a company who wants to keep power
2. the legislature having its own vested interest from relationship/deal/lobbying
3. the minority of constituents are the ones who constantly call in and go to townhalls, because they have the time, money, or energy to do so compared to someone who's at work during a townhall.
What's the actual steel man argument for why noncompetes are good? I've never really encountered one, just seen the corporate advocacy that they don't want to deal with high employee turnover.
Best I can do: Non-competes are (possibly) unenforceable anyway, so signing one maybe acts as a value signal for the employee? "I'd have to violate my non-compete, so in order to do that and permanently burn the bridge with my current company, you need to pay me $X + $Y."
Frankly I don't buy it, though, because it assumes too much about the rationality of all actors involved and the savviness of the employee during negotiations.
> What's the actual steel man argument for why noncompetes are good?
It probably depends on the kind of job.
If say Walmart tried to use a noncompete to stop cashiers from going to Target there probably is no reasonable argument in favor of that.
On the other when the employee is a top level executive who knows all the company's trade secrets and all their plans for the next year or so and they want to go to a direct competitor it is hard to see how they won't use that information at the competitor. Even if they scrupulously try to uphold any NDAs they are under and so don't consciously do it stuff will leak.
If the first company sues accusing the second company and/or ex-employee of using such information it can get pretty messy, and consumer judicial resources better used for other things.
A policy then of allowing noncompetes in this situation might overall be beneficial. Top level executives are generally well compensated and should be sufficiently sophisticated financially to understand the consequences of a noncompete and take that into account when deciding on taking the job so having to sit out 6-12 months before taking a directly competing job should not be a serious issue.
> On the other when the employee is a top level executive who knows all the company's trade secrets and all their plans for the next year or so and they want to go to a direct competitor it is hard to see how they won't use that information at the competitor.
Since this is a steelman, what is the rationale for this dynamic needing to be protected? If this employee wants to go to a competitor because they they are getting a better employment deal, why not just try to keep them with your own better employment deal?
Why does it need some forced restriction? I know people aren't perfectly rational market participants, but what besides financial compensation or an enjoyable work environment would compel someone to go to a competitor?
I am glad most places are getting rid of non-competes. But here is the best argument I've heard for them:
For many companies, a lot of their value is in their intellectual property. Non-competes exist not because the company will enforce it against employees (they might, but they usually don't), but more as a fig-leaf to potential investors down the line asking about the value of the intellectual property. The argument goes, if someone could easily leave the company with the knowledge earned and go to a competitor, then the investment wouldn't be as valuable.
In theory, something like a technical job that requires extensive training. I always see reports about a lack of training for high tech trade / manufacturing jobs, as they require up to 2 years of training, but training slots are limited. You might get companies to pay the training if they could be assured the person would not run to a competitor. But even that should be agreed up front, with a limited term (eg we will train your two years, then pay you $X, and you will be subject to a noncompete for four years)
I was thinking of specialized welding, CNC operator, etc. Like, 12-18 months of hands-on training. I guess it could still be a scam, but I don't think transferability is an issue.
Some CNC machine manufacturers have on campus training workshops that would teach something transferable. If it's at a machine shop some will be and a lot won't be. Letting them sell it as training that needs to be paid back would be an absolute scam.
Some community colleges offer technical training, usually in partnership with a certificating body. But in this case the valuation is determined by a mostly independent body.
> What's the actual steel man argument for why noncompetes are good?
It makes it possible to confidently buy a business that's mostly or all goodwill. Otherwise the previous owner can simply poach all the clients.
Also lots of jurisdictions allow non-competes as long as the employee is paid for the duration of the non-compete clause. Obvious win there: paid vacation or double up your salary by working for a non-competing firm.
Non-competes on employees without compensation are obviously bad.
Non-competes are almost always unenforceable. Never take money (although even then, they're still mostly useless), and just ignore them and no one is going to do anything. That was what my business law professor taught us. No court is going to enforce a non-compete if it means the person who cannot compete is going to be unable to support themselves. The only time it'll be enforced is if you're already independently wealthy.
In other words, a completely useless scare tactic.
The problem is it won't get as far as trial, if the old company gets wind of it early enough (and they often do). The old company will reach out to the new company and politely inform them they believe they have grounds for a noncompete suit. The new company will either indemnify the worker, or (far more often) drop them as not worth the hassle, and take their #2 choice.
The legislation needs to change. The situation as it stands is ripe for barratry and bullying.
You may not even get as far as an interview. More and more, I see job applications asking whether you are subject to non-competes, alongside asking about visa etc. I imagine answering yes will unceremoniously move your application to the reject pile.
It just means your start date is delayed. No different from interviewing a student whose graduation date is a year away or interviewing a foreigner who might require a few months of paperwork to get a work visa.
Most non-competes are at least 6 months but usually more than a year, and I have never worked in a company that was open to hiring someone with a start date that far in the future. Plus, the clock wouldn't even start running until they leave their job, so if you hire them for a start day in 12 months, they have to quit now and spend their savings. I have never met someone who was open to doing that. I am sure it could happen in very rare circumstances, but most jobs would be closed to most people with non-competes. I am glad that I live in a jurisdiction that doesn't allow them anymore.
That’s not at all my experience. I remember back in the college days every single company on campus was willing to interview students in fall knowing that they would graduate next summer. That’s at least 9 or 10 months of waiting. Because if a company waits until spring, all the best students already have offers and aren’t on the market any more.
> they have to quit now and spend their savings
Every single job offer I’ve seen with a non-compete is a paid non-compete. You get 100% of your base salary and zero bonus. In industries where non-competes are common, people know this. They have savings to deal with reduced income due to zero bonus. There’s a reason why the non-compete period is colloquially known as garden leave. You have enough savings so that you can literally work on your garden. Companies know they need to be patient and plan for hiring needs far in advance. It’s super predictable.
Same here in Canada. I have had three non-competes in my career, none of which were paid. All of them were probably unenforceable if it went to trial, but I would have never gotten that far in the hiring pipeline. I instead opted to switch industries and move to a jurisdiction that doesn't allow non-competes.
I know at least one person who joined a Michigan startup, moved over, got sued by non compete, and the new employer just didnt want any hassle and laid them off. This person had to leave country then.
The take home is dont take tech jobs in states where non-compete clauses are still legal.
Sue them back. Represent yourself. Get compensatory damages. They will lose unless you can support yourself. Do you think any state is going to let someone go on unemployment and withdraw from the public dole just because some private company wants to gain some competitive advantage. Lol
But I do agree in general, never take compensation upon leaving a company, for whatever reason. Then everything is certainly unenforceable.
As for leaving the country... even if a non-compete is found to be enforceable (due to you being self-sufficient, or sufficently compensated), then the scope cannot be country wide. It has to be limited to a particular reasonable geography and a particular reasonable field.
> No court is going to enforce a non-compete if it means the person who cannot compete is going to be unable to support themselves. The only time it'll be enforced is if you're already independently wealthy.
The first part is probably usually true, because places where non-competes are enforceable generally will not enforce them if they are overly broad.
But for tech workers there are almost always other jobs that the worker can qualify for and pay similarly to their old job but are not covered by the non-compete and then then non-competes do get enforced even though the worker is not independently wealthy.
You can sue the old company for that. You had a job that they are not allowing you to do. Courts don't like it when someone isn't allowed to support themselves, and so generally place narrow limits on what a non-compete tan cover. You should sue for the sake of the rest of us who might be next when this tactic is found to work.
Lawsuits take years and are very expensive in time and money. Years of litigation cost Epic billions in legal fees and lost revenue. It's much much worse if you don't start with millions.
Is there actually substantial resistance to this? Or just a few manufactured counter-arguments from news outlets trying to do a both-sides take on this?
Non-competes have been heavily limited or outright voided in California. That's an easy and obvious rebuttal to the Silicon Valley argument.
Yes. The US Chamber of Commerce is particularly noteworthy in their attempts to slow the deployment of this policy at scale. They of course act on behalf of their members as a reputational laundering operation, so their members do not have to engage in this lobbying directly (potentially exposing them to reputational risk).
> Less than 24 hours later, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, the Texas Association of Business, and the Longview Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit against the FTC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that the consumer protection agency lacks the authority to issue rules that define unfair methods of competition, and instead, the FTC Act only allows it to bring cases challenging particular practices. The Chamber’s Complaint also contends that even if the FTC possessed such authority, the “noncompete rule would still be unlawful because noncompete agreements are not categorically unlawful under Section 5.” The lawsuit further argues that the rule is “impermissibly retroactive” and reflects an “arbitrary and capricious exercise” of the FTC’s power.
> The Chamber of Commerce is seeking an order “vacating and setting aside the noncompete rule in its entirety” and an order permanently enjoining the FTC from enforcing the rule. The plaintiffs are also seeking an order to delay the effective date and implementation of the noncompete ban until the conclusion of the case.
> The noncompete story is more galling. Legal experts describe the period from 1990 to roughly 2010 as the golden age of noncompete enforcement in America. What started as a tool for protecting senior executives’ trade secrets metastasized into a blanket restriction applied to hourly workers, sandwich shop employees, pet cremation technicians. An estimated 30 million Americans, nearly one in five workers, are bound by a noncompete agreement. These agreements directly suppress the mechanism through which the job ladder operates: they prevent employed workers from accepting better offers.
> The FTC, under the Biden administration, attempted a nationwide ban. The estimated effects were large and specific: $400 to $488 billion in increased wages over the next decade, $524 per worker per year in additional earnings, 8,500 new businesses annually, and 17,000 to 29,000 additional patents per year. The rule was struck down in federal court. The Trump administration formally vacated it in September 2025. The FTC has shifted to case-by-case enforcement, including a February 2026 consent order against a pet cremation company that had imposed blanket noncompetes on 1,780 employees, including hourly laborers and drivers. The bipartisan Workforce Mobility Act, reintroduced in June 2025 by Senators Murphy, Young, Cramer, and Kaine, would ban most noncompetes nationwide. It has been referred to committee. No further action has been taken. Over 150 bills have been introduced in more than 35 states, creating a patchwork that varies by jurisdiction. The patchwork is the opposite of the clear nationwide signal that would restore competitive dynamics.
> The graduate scrolling LinkedIn is not competing against chatbots. She is competing against four decades of eroded mobility, in a labor market where the companies that might hire her face less pressure to do so than at any point since the data began. We all spent two years worrying that AI will trap young workers in obsolete careers, if they every get a career in the first place. Meanwhile, noncompete agreements have been legally trapping workers in underpaying jobs for decades, and we barely noticed.
People in control of orgs and capital want to telegraph thought leadership via "we want to be the next Silicon Valley" without actually giving up control of workers or making the necessary system changes. For a parallel, see how Jamie Dimon says "AI could help bring about the 4 day work week." [1] Is JPMorgan Chase trying to move to a 4 day work week? No, of course not. Jamie likes to be important and have his proclamations disseminated, not actually make the change being used to chase clout and status (because once wealthy, there is nothing left to chase if one wants to chase something).
TLDR Talk is cheap, work and change is hard and painful (broadly speaking). Observe actions, not words.
