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
What kind of sensitive IP do quants have? How is it different than the tech industry?

>>saagar+Zj
General strategies of trading on financial markets. Entirely different than working at Google.

>>infect+Xp
And what benefit does the economy and society get by allowing monopolization of these strategies by a single company at the expense of basic right for workers to switch jobs to the ones that pay them the most?

It sounds so profoundly anti-capitalist - if the knowledge of certain strategy is so important, the employee should be retained by paying them more and giving them better perks instead of enforced labor contract.

>>izacus+pt
> if the knowledge of certain strategy is so important, the employee should be retained by paying them more and giving them better perks

This particular suggestion breaks down fast when you have multiple employees that need to collaborate. If you have a million dollar strategy, you can pay half a million to an employee as a retention bonus. But you can't pay half a million each to 8 employees.