zlacker

[parent] [thread] 8 comments
1. eru+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-11-18 09:17:28
Unemployment in eg the US is fairly low. So you can pick companies which have less stringent non-competes (or non at all).
replies(5): >>Alchem+P >>SenAnd+M3 >>neilwi+X6 >>marcus+sf >>toomuc+mg
2. Alchem+P[view] [source] 2023-11-18 09:23:42
>>eru+(OP)
When I go back to the US, I pick states by which have limited non-competes.
replies(1): >>eru+Kd3
3. SenAnd+M3[view] [source] 2023-11-18 09:52:20
>>eru+(OP)
Limiting yourself to voting with your wallet/feet, while corporations use every trick in the book, is like trying to win at chess using only pawns.
4. neilwi+X6[view] [source] 2023-11-18 10:17:41
>>eru+(OP)
Jobs on offer are fewer than number of unemployed.

Therefore jobs are scarce.

Only when there is a vast surplus of jobs will competition do the work. Until then you need regulation.

replies(1): >>sophac+4F
5. marcus+sf[view] [source] 2023-11-18 11:27:18
>>eru+(OP)
Or we could not allow unconscionable contract terms.
6. toomuc+mg[view] [source] 2023-11-18 11:34:10
>>eru+(OP)
Labor rights shouldn’t be governed by employment metrics.
◧◩
7. sophac+4F[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-18 14:15:20
>>neilwi+X6
And regulators that dont cite "low unemployment" when they raise interest rates.
replies(1): >>eru+7p7
◧◩
8. eru+Kd3[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-19 06:14:12
>>Alchem+P
That's a fair point. Competition between states to attract people (and business) is good.
◧◩◪
9. eru+7p7[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 10:04:50
>>sophac+4F
They actually do, from time to time.
[go to top]