Without that 10 you're losing innovation. How much? My personal experience with companies that probably wouldn't have existed or been successful without non-compete (or equivalent) says quite a lot.
Just to protect people from making bad decisions?
I'll leave you with the FTC announcement. According to this there's nothing good about non-compete clauses at all. No issue like this is entirely black and white and when somebody tells you it is they're lying and have some agenda; for instance they say banning non-compete "would close racial and gender wage gaps".
I think the difference is if the abusive to non abusive was 50:50 then it would be kinda fine, but it’s more like 90:10.
You're talking cost/benefit.
Without that 10 you're losing innovation. How much? My personal experience with companies that probably wouldn't have existed or been successful without non-compete (or equivalent) says quite a lot.
Just to protect people from making bad decisions?
I'll leave you with the FTC announcement. According to this there's nothing good about non-compete clauses at all. No issue like this is entirely black and white and when somebody tells you it is they're lying and have some agenda; for instance they say banning non-compete "would close racial and gender wage gaps".