Hacker News Reader

Comment by benced | Hacker News Reader

I suspect this is bad for California, its lack of noncompetes was a huge differentiation for a while.

(how bad? I don't know.)

It's not bad when people are copying you, it signals that California is ahead of the curve on the issue and - upon further examination - others too like decriminalization of cannabis including removing it from background checks and drug testing for most employment, as well as certain tenant and landlord rights other states don't have.

Some of those non-competes were ridiculous with their "in perpetuity throughout the ends of the Universe" type wordplay, I'm surprised governments haven't been more vigilant on things like the stifling of entrepreneurial mobility, since it only helps their economies in the long run to do so.

Make it possible to disrupt, design economies for entrepreneurs as much as for corporations, and reap the benefits IMO. Let those big evil uglies get disrupted if they can't stay relevant or retain top talent.

It is bad for a state - at least in relative terms - if it has a good thing and suddenly every state has that good thing. It means that people that might have once moved to California for its laws will no longer do so.

That mentality is like saying "I'm only rich if others are poor" - you can of course still be well off, even when others occasionally catch up, and maybe better off if the tide lifts all boats. Also what you say doesn't go against the point about signaling. There's something to being on the cutting edge vs not.

> people that might have once moved to California for its laws will no longer do so

Which is a huge demographic right? After all, most people don't come to California for its incredible beaches, paychecks, food, diversity, entertainment, etc. it's our wonderful laws that attract everyone, right?

I am making a diagnostic statement that is true. You are incorrectly inferring that I think this FTC action is therefore bad which I did not say anywhere.

> Which is a huge demographic right? After all, most people don't come to California for its incredible beaches, paychecks, food, diversity, entertainment, etc. it's our wonderful laws that attract everyone, right?

Yes, that's why I expressed uncertainty on how bad this would be for California.

> You are incorrectly inferring that I think this is therefore bad which I did not say

Did you not say in your opener:

> It is bad for a state

I should have appended the other statement with /s

That is to say, people don't typically move to California because they love the legal system, it's typically for other reasons like our weather, economy (jobs), diversity, schools (difficult to find hard data, but just search for it and see what things you see listed). Even in the case where someone does base their moving decision on a state's stance on entrepreneurial mobility, California being many years ahead of this FTC decision would only make it a better candidate, not worse.

Others passing the same measures years later does not make California seem "bad" in comparison. It would signal that they're just ahead of the curve on the issue, so I think your take is flawed.

Yes, it is bad for the state of California. That is a different question from is it good or bad for the FTC to do this.

Most hilarious attempt at moving goalposts I've seen all week - this conversation has been about whether or not its bad for California the whole time, now you're switching to say whether or not its good for the FTC! Just funny

I said "I suspect this is bad for California" which I stand by. That statement says absolutely nothing about whether or not I think this is a good decision by the FTC. However, you treated it like I was against this action by the FTC and started arguing about why it's good to ban noncompetes and why it's good California is on the leading edge of such policies.

As it happens, I am very against noncompetes and I very much like this action by the FTC. You should have read more closely and shouldn't have assumed the opposite.

I have to remind you that your original comment was:

  It is bad for a state - at least in relative terms - if it has a good thing and suddenly every state has that good thing.

You were not talking about the FTC, you were talking about the state. Furthermore, the parent comment to which you're replying was:

  It's not bad when people are copying you, it signals that California is ahead of the curve on the issue...

which was a reply to

  I suspect this is bad for California

We were all - and especially you - very clearly talking about whether or not it's bad for California. Only later in the conversation did you start to shift your statements to seem as if you're talking about the FTC.

Moving the goalpost fallacy:

  Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other evidence is demanded.

e.g. "It might be bad for California, but not the FTC", "you can't read", "incorrectly inferring", "assuming" etc. Nope, none of those, just sticking to the topic.

Yes, I agree that I was always talking about whether this was good or bad for California. You then provided arguments against non-competes:

> Some of those non-competes were ridiculous with their "in perpetuity throughout the ends of the Universe" type wordplay, I'm surprised governments haven't been more vigilant on things like the stifling of entrepreneurial mobility, since it only helps their economies in the long run to do so.

> Make it possible to disrupt, design economies for entrepreneurs as much as for corporations, and reap the benefits IMO. Let those big evil uglies get disrupted if they can't stay relevant or retain top talent.

My point all along is that "is this a good thing for the FTC to do?" and "is the FTC doing this thing good for California" are separate questions. My initial comment only opined - in the negative direction - on the latter question which is why I have been perpetually confused about you arguing the former question.

It's not. California isn't the only municipality to have banned NCAs.

https://natlawreview.com/article/state-law-restrictive-coven...

I'd guess it will have the opposite effect as companies have one less big reason to avoid CA.

The reason no non-competes has helped CA is increasing startup formation. California has shown over the last 30-50 years that startup formation > attracting legacy businesses for growth. Unless that changes, California becoming less differentiated for startup formation but getting more legacy businesses is a bad trade for California.

One of the biggest issues I have with economists theory of comparative advantage is it ignores the self sustaining ecosystem aspects of economics.

Some places if you need someone to do specialized thing X you can just walk down the street. Most places you'll need to find someone willing to move and and take a big hit on his career options. So that deep bench of skilled labor and business resources is a big deal.

Eh.... any impact will play out over a long period of time. Everything interesting happens on the margin, so I do agree with you that CA's laws around non-competes has had a beneficial impact on new business formation, and contributed to CA's economic growth. If this gets fully implemented, it will level the playing field with other states, but it will take some time (a decade would be my bet) for the impact to be fully felt.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com