Non-competes could be seen (from a company's point of view) as a form of the prisoner's dilemma: everyone is better off if no one requires non-competes, but if everyone else requires them than I need to. Therefore, a law of this sort could potentially improve conditions for all companies in a way that individual companies could not accomplish themselves. That is, the government is not trying to tell you what to do, it's trying to create a better business and employment environment.
Non-competes are basically a source of friction in the employment market. They create inefficiencies because employees can no longer go to work for the company to which they will provide most value (which will presumably reward them commensurately).
Comments
Non-competes could be seen (from a company's point of view) as a form of the prisoner's dilemma: everyone is better off if no one requires non-competes, but if everyone else requires them than I need to. Therefore, a law of this sort could potentially improve conditions for all companies in a way that individual companies could not accomplish themselves. That is, the government is not trying to tell you what to do, it's trying to create a better business and employment environment.
Really? Finish your thought. Why is everyone better off if nobody requires noncompetes?
Non-competes are basically a source of friction in the employment market. They create inefficiencies because employees can no longer go to work for the company to which they will provide most value (which will presumably reward them commensurately).