As if all employers were the same. But you shouldn't feel pity for them, you should feel regret for the oncoming mediocrity that always follows trying to protect people from being able to make poor choices.
If you're American you've benefitted from the federal system where that kind work was done in other more free market states. You may not notice the mediocrity since you're used to it and don't know the difference, but the whole country will be like that.
Non-competes have been non-enforceable in California for decades, including during Silicon Valley's Golden Age. Indeed much of the innovation during that period was from high-ranking engineers quitting their jobs at some larger chip manufacturer or software vendor and doing the thing they wanted to do but were prevented from doing at the bigger company they worked for.
If you ever played a NES or Atari 2600 you benefitted from this, because the lead engineer of the 6502 microprocessor which powers both was a former Motorola computer engineer who worked on their 6800 microprocessor, and when he went on to work at MOS on the 6502 he hired a bunch of his former Motorola colleagues to design and produce it based on ideas Motorola didn't want to pursue.
What you're describing are companies (in the distant past) that paid for talent, not ones that invested in employees. People at Atari showed up to work and the first day they were productive. If they leave after a year the company has a year's worth of work to show for it.
Later when companies in California had to actually invest in their workers, for instance at Google it takes 6+ months to even be able to understand their byzantine systems, Californians also got non-compete agreements - they just had no say in it. And without that gentleman's agreement they're only hiring easily institutionalized twitter libs that drink wine for lunch and make one commit a week. Seriously who in their right mind would accept a job at Google these days? Some sad sack maybe.
I know that it's hard for your black and white thinking to understand, but things can be both good and bad depending on context. And yeah, modern day CA is a wasteland in any industry that companies have to invest in their employees, like in the security area for instance. What companies still exist there are megacorp parasites.
As if all employers were the same. But you shouldn't feel pity for them, you should feel regret for the oncoming mediocrity that always follows trying to protect people from being able to make poor choices.
I've spent most of my career working for companies in jurisdictions where non-competes are legally unenforceable, so I doubt much will change for me.
If you're American you've benefitted from the federal system where that kind work was done in other more free market states. You may not notice the mediocrity since you're used to it and don't know the difference, but the whole country will be like that.
Non-competes have been non-enforceable in California for decades, including during Silicon Valley's Golden Age. Indeed much of the innovation during that period was from high-ranking engineers quitting their jobs at some larger chip manufacturer or software vendor and doing the thing they wanted to do but were prevented from doing at the bigger company they worked for.
If you ever played a NES or Atari 2600 you benefitted from this, because the lead engineer of the 6502 microprocessor which powers both was a former Motorola computer engineer who worked on their 6800 microprocessor, and when he went on to work at MOS on the 6502 he hired a bunch of his former Motorola colleagues to design and produce it based on ideas Motorola didn't want to pursue.
If that's "mediocrity" than I'll gladly take it.
What you're describing are companies (in the distant past) that paid for talent, not ones that invested in employees. People at Atari showed up to work and the first day they were productive. If they leave after a year the company has a year's worth of work to show for it.
Later when companies in California had to actually invest in their workers, for instance at Google it takes 6+ months to even be able to understand their byzantine systems, Californians also got non-compete agreements - they just had no say in it. And without that gentleman's agreement they're only hiring easily institutionalized twitter libs that drink wine for lunch and make one commit a week. Seriously who in their right mind would accept a job at Google these days? Some sad sack maybe.
I know that it's hard for your black and white thinking to understand, but things can be both good and bad depending on context. And yeah, modern day CA is a wasteland in any industry that companies have to invest in their employees, like in the security area for instance. What companies still exist there are megacorp parasites.