zlacker

>>pg_123+(OP)
Quant firms at least are one of the few places where noncompetes can make sense. It's an extremely IP sensitive industry with stupendously high pay where the employee is going to someone probably competing very directly with you, for the same/similar opportunities. Actual code + NDAs banning literal reimplementations of stuff aren't that valuable, the knowledge and ideas will stay in the head of the employees.

The two main issues I have with them are that firms tend to give them to just about everybody (instead of just to folks working very directly with real IP), and they only pay base salary, not something closer to actual total compensation (often multiples of the base pay).

Having said that, the quant firm is relatively unimportant and not a good reason to prevent a total noncompete law. It's probably better to just ban them then try and make allowances that aren't full of loopholes.

>>vgathe+Cg
Why does it make sense. Pay employees for their work and they’ll stick around.

>>gmerc+ni
To your point, it's ironic that firms who push a free market ethos don't actually want to compete. Instead, they want a thumb on the scale that tilts the advantages in their direction.

Welcome to Crony Capitalism (which should not be confused with traditional capitalism).

>>chiefa+Yi
Offering a contract with whatever stipulations to a potential counterparty that he can sign or not sign on his own accord is competing. Forbidding your counterparty from putting certain stipulations in their contract by using government intervention is not.

>>golerg+yf1
If they limited the vendor's (i.e., employee's) options, how is the being competitive?

And if the market colludes to handcuff vendors (to the benefit of the hiring companies) how is that being competitive?

Employment is already at will, and that is mutual to both parties. Why should one side be allowed to purposely disadvantage the other side? How is that being competitive?