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
Are quant firms positive sum for society? I can imagine that some trading leads to goods being priced more efficiently or w/e but I doubt the level of alpha these firms are chasing has positive externalities. If not, you should shouldn't really care about this hurting their industry.

>>thatgu+ev1
You highlight a more general problem: the social/economic function of finance is to be a service industry to ensure there is liquidity available (that other people can use for their purposes).

What bugs me is that somehow society lionizes people in the money industries over those doing equivalent service jobs like gardening, lawyering, much less more important ones like garbage collection.

>>gumby+IG1
Society does not do that. They can extract more capital, so they’re considered more important.

If gardeners were paid 500k/year, they would be exalted. It has nothing to do with the work or the value provided to society.

People just love money and praise those that have it.