An that use of the term "poaching" [high level employee hiring away friends] originated with the earlier/original meaning of the term i.e. "hunting animals illegally". The deer (for example) were the property of the King - Robin Hood was a poacher.

The idea that they need non-competes to retain talent should still set off some alarms that maybe companies aren't paying market rate salaries.

Most people don't leave a company for less money and no other benefits, and there's nothing wrong with employees being lured away for more pay. That's how it's supposed to work.

I always thought the scenario they meant to describe was something like, I work for Company A, and Company B makes some partnership with them to deliver some product, but then I'm the main guy so Company B just hires me away

It's great language for shifting blame as well. Instead of a business admitting they couldn't retain an employee, which would imply that they need to look at what they are doing. By calling it poaching, they are now a victim of being poached from, and less responsible for what happened. I put this next to the people who say 'can't find anyone who does x' but who never admit it is because of the salary they are paying.

Whatever the history, it's psychologically tied up with a lot of nasty baggage, and makes it seem inherently dirty, like there's something wrong with bidding up the value of labor by seeking to offer better compensation for workers.

Whatever the technical "correctness" of the term, it comes of as a sort of apology for setting better wages and we should use less loaded terms, like "recruited" or "bid/hired away".