Companies don't train anymore. That's why they have master's degree preferred bachelor's degree required with six years of experience in order to make $50,000 on every job ad nowadays. Or nine years experience master's degree required to make 85,000. It's ridiculous. Find me a job on indeed or monster that actually trains you. For every one of those, there will be 1,000 that expect you to show up $80,000 in student loan debt with 10 years of experience working God knows where because nobody hires you unless you have any sort of experience anyway. That's a meme in 2024.

This is a made up scenario that holds no water with a single second of thought. And if it has happened, the organization that's constantly losing employees after training is ran by complete morons---a business model of constantly turning around trainees means little product is generated. If you're constantly having your workforce poached instead of throwing a temper tantrum like a spineless child with a very antithetical non-compete clause, maybe try _competing_ to keep those employees happy so they stick around.

If the FTC has the authority ban non-competes under existing law, I'm not sure why Obama was asking states to ban them in law back in October 2016. If his FTC thought it would survive court challenges, I'm sure he would have just had the FTC ban them before he left office. I think that a ban on overly broad non-competes and non-competes for fast food workers and other low level employees could be upheld as regulating unfair competition The FTC does have this authority and there is ample evidence that they are being used to restrict normal competition A complete ban on non-competes, including narrowly tailored non-competes for executives seems like it will get overturned in the courts. I would love to see both state and federal laws banning them

companies training thats a laugh

I get it, but, call me stupid, but if my employer had trained me, I would have enough respect for them to stay (at least for a while). Of course, the best employer would also continuously bump up the salary as the experience grows, as it should be. And then it wouldn't be a discussion.

That's just messed up.

It's never been legal, simple logic, the contract is null & void once your fired or quit, you can't be bound by a contract your no longer in, common sense. A non compete only applies while your hired. It's a work contract, if your not working for them there's no contract.

@@exxe2454Pretty sure stuff like NDAs still apply, don't they?

@@Content_DeletedNDAs can be enforceable, non-competes are usually a joke but they like to bundle them together and make it hard to wriggle out of

@@Content_Deleted No actually, & don't let a lawyer tell you otherwise, a contract is only valid if it has a proper termination clause that let's either party leave whenever they no longer see the contract as mutually beneficial thus releasing the other party from any benefit/debt they may owe you while also repaying off any debt you'd otherwise still have to them & vice versa if they want to terminate without cause, they pay you what's owed & you don't owe then anything afterwards. Hence an NDA only applies so long as both parties are gaining something of mutual beneficial in perpetually year after year say for example "knowledge", access to the database holding that knowledge would be valid, but once it's in your head that's a 1 time transaction, so if your not paid year after year to keep that info to yourself or if they refuse to increase that pay as you request then you can void it by default.

Arbitration that excludes class action for sure. *Binding* arbitration should be banned.

And DEI hiring

@@Zagirus You're in luck. DEI hiring just got illegalled by the SCOTUS last week.

@@Zagirus D.E.I could work if they included ex-cons but it's really just a woke tool.

Well, forced arbitration

You can if you hold State-Enforced Patents and "IP" and have the Federal Reserve steal from the drones to give you access to easy "capital".

Oh, you CAN hold a monopoly, but you have to do it the old-fashioned way, by buying all of your competition, and sending dudes with pickaxe handles to "persuade" those who won't sell to get out of the business.

@@MonkeyJedi99 the old way is still technically illegal, but this is not been enforced in decades

@@marcogenovesi8570 centuries

@@marcogenovesi8570 that's actually been changing. haven't you noticed all the big mergers being blocked by the us government recently? biden's ftc is by far the best thing about his administration.

Neo-con boomers.

Boomers are crazy. They complain about wokeness being shoved down their throats and then fellate corporations. It's wild.

They're kool-aid-drinking bible thumpers, it's what they do

why are you giving fox, or any corporate press clicks. Use archived links.

They're not people, they're bots.

Hard agree on that last statement. Forced arbitration is like the next stage of this corporate cancer.

i think non competes should be okay, if they are required to pay full or 90 % of the normal salary of that employee, for the time of the non compete

Companies who have Non competes should be made to buy their way out of these situations. Give them a deadline and a penalty. This would punish those with them. It might also stop bad business practices that might be considered like forced arbitration to be targeted next.

Can you please explain forced arbitration to someone who knows nothing about it?

@@JustfknBillit’s a internal lawsuit/internal court case with a typical retired judge. so it’s like a normal lawsuit but solely for the company; and the arbitration is 97%+ for the company’s favor.

In Europe, they can't. They can't fire you unless you've done something wrong. If they have to let you go for economic reasons, they have to pay. If they then immediately hire someone else for the same job, it means that the original dismissal was unlawful as the job has to become defunct when you do. What is it about the USA that any of these things are actually real ? I don't get it.

@@quantisedspace7047 it's the same thing behind why every tax cut for the ultra-wealthy and mega-corporations is celebrated - far too many people believe that "if I just work a little harder..." they'll be the oppressors instead of the oppressed. There's a lot of money involved in keeping people under this delusion.

​@@quantisedspace7047 it's not a developed country

​@@smugler1The UK is currently transitioning to undeveloped status. We still have some rights but as of a few years ago employers may fire their employees during their first 2 years of employment without notice or recourse.

Not the same thing

I am willing to go out on a limb by saying this: *Non-compete stifles innovation!*

FCC also restored Net Neutrality today Interesting times...

​@@xdjrunner didn't know this, another great news 🎉

​@@Operational117 I mean yeah, if competition is supposed to bring innovation, anything literally made to prevent competition is also stifling innovation. This is also why I have a problem with copyright/patent systems, they can prevent innovative products from being made because some other random company owns one of the pieces needed to solve the puzzle. But that's a whole other discussion. (Obviously I think the inventor of something deserves to be compensated, but maybe there should be some requirement that it's always licensable for some reasonable price.)

Non-competes have never been applicable to unskilled or low-skilled workers. They are only enforceable in very limited circumstances and have never been able to stop anyone from going to work for a different company.

1 year non compete? ouch i think it would be okay for 3 (maybe 6) months, if the employer has to still pay you, while the non compete time

I would ask to be paid the full salary for that non-compete period. It's alright if they don't want me to work anymore, but they ought to be responsible for me while I am still bound by them. Luckily, I do live in the EU where workers' rights are a fair bit different.

if they want you to be unable to work for 1 year if you leave their company, no problem. they just can pay you for that year :) seems fair

The problem is, even if they agreed to your terms, it's much easier for a company (and gets easier, the larger the company is) to hire someone with a slightly (or even completely) different job title and still have them do the same work as you.

@@houserhythm that is why you demand full pay for that period, then they have to pay two people to do that job.

That is ridiculous

This type of stuff requires a direct action karma correction.

If that happend to me, someone will die

No wonder it's so hard to find good pizza places

@@XDWX no, but by all means, just go and politely tell the manager he's a diarrhea. Nobody would eat at a place that tries to destroys people's lives if they knew.

Pretty certain this ruling excludes executive positions (which being the owner of a business is) for your reason and company-exclusive knowledge, the ban is for employees

This ruling specifically excludes people selling a business

Here in EU, as I understand it, non compete means I can't start the company and take away clients, I can go and do the same job for a different company and I can start my own company for as long as I don't contact clients from my previous company to get my services instead. It is beyond unreasonable and unethical to not let workers switch to another company.

I think using it to protect trade secrets is also acceptable

@@maxscott3349 Non-compete is about competing, not about keeping secrecy. That should be part of employment contract. At least I would have formulated it that way.

@@Yulrag Yeah and ideally that would be enough, but I think there are a lot of situations where a non compete really does make sense. For example, I heard about this company that makes a part for way less than anyone else can, and noone can figure out why because they pay six figures and make people sign some kind of contract before they even see the process. It's probably just a workholding thing, and I can see someone letting the cat out of the bag completely unintentionally just by doing something similar on a different part.

@@maxscott3349 There is something called non disclosure agreement, it serves to protect such information.

It should only be permitted if the worker is privy to some top secret information (and that should just be covered by an NDA and/or patent, anyway).

Ooh, an evil plan just formed in my head. Malicious Incorporated hires everyone with the skills for the jobs they have, gets them to sign non-competes, then lays them off to hire the next ones. Soon, they have hostage all of the potential employees for any of the jobs they operate, and then they hire some of them back at lower pay rates, perhaps even as low as minimum wage. Keep them working for a few months, let them go (with the non-compete) and hire the next wave. Timed right, you will OWN the regional labor pool without even having to pay all of them at once.

@@MonkeyJedi99 And then those employees sue their former employer for wrongful dismissal since the either they weren't bad at their job, and they weren't redundant. ;)

@@richardpayne I didn't say it was a smart plan, just an evil one. Maybe in the movie about it, the employees could be led by a dancing lawyer. Kevin Bacon, perhaps?

Try: "past few centuries"

True! We need a working class revolution and a new set of elected people in Congress!

Yeah we need a loser pays legal system too

Well, no. I had a small construction company. Many experienced employees just get bored. They leave, go to another contractor they worked for before. They stay there a while, get bored, rotate to another contractor, bored and back to me again. It may seem strange, but it is quite common. No problem for me or the employee. It also kept me with a set of these employees who had high morale. Happy people make unhappy people happy again.

This is a nice idea in concept but in practice difficult to achieve. I'm paying my engineers 40% above market salary, straight time overtime, full health insurance for their family (unheard of in industry, its a 20% of salary value benefit) and I double side pay for their 401k match under SafeHarbors (I pay their contribution in addition to the employer match). It takes me 24 months to train them, and I'm having a 30 month average turnover; and we aim for them to work 48 hours per week or less. I'm getting maybe 32 hours per week out of them at most, usually between 22-28. They leave, take our inhouse IP, book of business contacts, and try to hang their own shingle and try to undercut me.

@@dunxtonchexton1631 Without any disrespect, it sounds to me like you might be thinking like either an employee or a charity. Watch Bar Rescue re-runs to see how well either works. My suggestions: drop all of these extra benefits and salary. Demand that they work 40 hours. Any complaints, fire someone in a meeting with the whole group. Separately from my above suggestion, go fire someone tomorrow! I don't know your exact situation or local laws, but you need a spy or surveillance of some sort. Might be a good time for a really good cleaning or some BS repair work that takes a week. If you are losing so much $$, you can afford to pay 2 people to fake it. One of my very very most bestest employees simply could not run the crew for an hour while I left to go take care of other things. I definitely kept him, but not in a supervisor position. So with some inside information, you might be able to "fairly" judge each person instead of guessing. Finally, if you want to extend really good pay and benefits, demand something in return. Start with a time period. Say maybe after three productive years, they get one of the good benefits. Then one year later, they get another. The global economy is about to crash so badly that the Great Depression in the US will look like "fun". So get things worked out right now, without delay or you might suffer the pain of a failed business. Sucks, but it's a fact, not a guess. I suggest you sit down and write up the rules you would expect yourself to carry out if you were working for yourself or else would fire. Be nice, don't ever yell or lose your temper. Having to fire someone hurts emotionally. That will go away after a few times. I lost my business when I started to have near lethal seizures suddenly. It really does hurt to lose it all. Good luck.

This is the fundamental misunderstanding. It's not nice. I'm not being nice!! I'm bribing them to leave their current job and look after my business.

Still a win-win

@@rossmanngroup money moves

One person's "nice" and another person's "mean". So yeah Louis, it was very malicious of you to look out for other people's -property- people. Now they won't have the same horse to work to death for the glue factory, now they have to stop relying on their top talent that they've become dependent on. Like a Catch 22.

Well I was writing a reply but this new UKposts ad system stopped me from pausing like one word before I completed so here I am rewriting wasting time because the wanted to advert me an otc allergy med when I already take one covered by my insurance. This behavior actually links to what I was originally trying to comment on which is the whole anchro capitalist movement to supposedly start your own if you don’t like it example in this case was an isp but company’s like comcast who like to flaunt there excellent ratings and only have those ratings because they are a monopoly in all but the slimmest legal since setting up laws as much as possible to prevent people from setting up there own isps or isps as a utility. In the same way these media companies with ads go how far can we monetize everything and remove every scrap individualism that might eat our bottom line while refusing to carry adverts anywhere for our competitors that anyone can see effectively eliminating competition since the control the only known viewing channels it is kinda of hard to learn something exist if you only can see ad for at 4am on a 2” screen through a basement window downtown on the third Friday every three months which is the only spot they will sell you because it is all the legally haft to do setting up independent isps or ISPs as a utility is like that currently.

Exactly the same philosophy as being intolerant of intolerance. And not that I'm a loon, but also the same idea that for peace to be protected, violence must be met with violence. You have to protect what you have, or it will be taken by those who don't care

Why does it have to fit into your pro-business, libertarian framework? Why can you not just accepts that no single political philosophy has all the answers and it'd be crazy to think it does?

I mean that's how banning slavery works.

​@@joepieklthis. It is SO sad to see adults agreeing to everything a political party/ideology/doctrine says. Use your brain, think for yourself what is right and what is not on each topic individually.

@@cryora It is also the logic behind most state power. It is the justification for the existence of police, courts, business regulations, and even the Welfare State. All are layers to liberate the individual from petty tyrants, who are potentially numerous and mortally endanger any meaningful freedom.

My company uses a lot of contract labor. On several occasions, we were able to convert those contractors to employees through negotiations with the contracting company. Basically, make them an offer to release them so we can hire them. Kind of a win-win situation. Also, we just bring on a new contractor from the company anyway, so they don't even loose any recurring revenue.

Well fortunately, non-competes are illegal now as I understand it, so it's not binding now.

@@dangero2000 yes, in 112 days. it takes time to be in effect.

​@@Sunrise-d819i2pretty sure the chamber of commerce and other business organizations would fight tooth and nail against it.

If he becomes President, I’ll be the Vice President and bring all those corrupt corporations down!.. meaning 75% of all corporations. Lol

He should be president!

No way! We want him instead!

​@@Timely-ud4rm He would then go fully bald

I want to be Vice President to send corrupted companies to the ground. And 75% of them are corrupt!

they also never honored their commitment to finish out my journeyman apprenticeship, they never filed the paperwork with the dept of labor to track my hours.

@@diplenski I'd be furious for that last part. I love HVAC as someone who doesn't do it, super neat stuff. In my state they were already basically unenforceable unless they paid you for the duration following the separation.

@@AngryAmericanWizard i was, and still am. they just kept jerking me around whenever i'd ask. they ended up letting me go right before covid after 4 years. so i was eligible for unemployment and all the extensions which was pretty sweet. i actually went back last year for a few months and they were jerking another guy around about his apprenticeship, so i quit again. i still don't have my journeyman's license, i might just test for my master license.

lol company was like drat! oh well, we tried XD

The classic Non-Compete is Statist and not enforceable under AnCAP. There has to be a title transfer for something to be a contract.

It more simple: I own my labor.

So you're poorly informed then. Libertarianism in the US is right wing nonsense.

@@kasimirfreeman In an anarcho-capitalist dystopia, this problem would be much worse, like all other problems. In an anarcho-capitalist dystopia, companies would obviously use noncompete just because it is in their interest to do so. If you are a business, you don't want competition for your workers. Okay, who would enforce such a contract? Private courts that are paid for by companies would enforce all contracts. In the anarcho-capitalist world, there are no public courts, just private ones, and good luck being a low-income worker in that world. A low-income worker in this dystopia would be in a constant desperate state to find any work, because there is no public welfare, so he would sign any contract, and then the company would enforce that contract with the help of courts that they pay for.

​@@user-lh5re8jh7uYour own labor? No. You own what you physically possess around you. You don't even own the code you create, just the local copy of it on the hard drive you physically possess.

Never heard of a non comete until this vid. I'd say sign away and let their lawyers figure it out. I'd go to court all day for free.

Are there guardrails to prevent companies from poaching smaller companies like what Apple did to that blood oxygen company though?

​​@@tedzards509there are no major guard rails. There are some exceptions but in my opinion they are too narrow to prevent serious issues And that could be a major problem. This non compete ban will crush the health care industry if enforced, this non compete ban will create a ruthless competition between small businesses. The people celebrating this don't really know how the pursuit of better pay could upend smaller local communities. Look at what happened when travel nurses became popular? It left many nurses with lower pay and under staffed compared to these traveling nurses.

@@tedzards509 Frankly, I'm not sure why you'd want to prevent that. Why shouldn't those employees be allowed to work at Apple if they can get a better deal there? That's just how the free market is supposed to work.

@@user-lk2vo8fo2q Monopolies are generally not good for a capitalist market, so allowing larger companies to eat up smaller competition is bad for both the consumers and the market itself.

We have something like that in the Netherlands, it’s like a fund that helps you bridge the time when between jobs. You go to UWV. There are also funds for injuries and stuff.

@@rubenskiii Here if you work and have a issue you go bankrupt if its bad even if you have insurance. We only give free healthcare to prisoners and people who do not work or if they already declared medical bankruptcy and lost everything

Depending on if you signed a non compete and what it specified that could easily be a thing yes. That is why most people agree non compete aretoal BS and exploitative and anti workers Only people you'll see crying about wanting noj competes to be a thing are corporations and CEOs

In some industries, there is some logic to it. For example, an associate at a law firm or investment firm may quit to start their own firm and bring over a significant chunk of the clients from their old firm. That being said, those non compete clauses did not say you couldn't be a lawyer for a year. They say that you can't work for any of their clients in your new firm. The problem is that other companies abused the concept to the point that someone making sandwiches at Jimmy Johns could not go over to Subway and make sandwiches there. Probably trying to protect the information regarding whether the cheese or the ham should be placed first.

@@ptrinch That is a pretty bad example though, a better example would be a high ranking employee with knowledge of company secrets, leaving the company and joining a competitor to leak those secrets. However, even in such a case, the theoretical value of that employee not leaking information is much greater than any wages the company could pay during the non compete duration, in which case they should at least be required to keep the employee on payroll even after quitting (or being fired).

@@ptrinch Stealing clients is not the same as a non compete.

@@848 Company secrets is a NDA issue, not a non compete.

"I pay my janitors more than you pay your techs"

Great, and now everyone from the IRS to the health insurance is wondering how he can afford what he can, on a janitor's salary.

This is more inline with how non-competes were supposed to be used. To protect trades secrets, or an investment made in a specific employee for which the employee received compensation beyond base pay. For example, a radio station spending a significant amount to market a headline personality would have that employee agree to not work for another radio station *in that area for a finite amount of time.* Not for minimum wage workers.

Sadly, in the US this isn't how they're used. In the US you may even have to sign a non-compete to become a cook at a restaurant. And there is no obligation for the employer to pay you for the NC period after firing you. NDAs also already achieve the goal of protecting trade secrets without restricting the free market of labor.

Germany has it like this: If the company wants to have the non compete enforced, they have to contractually agree to paying at least 50% of the salary for the duration of the non compete. If no payment was in the contract, the clause is void. If less payment was offered, it is optional for the former employee, i.e. they can choose to take the money and comply, or not.

The U.K. is similar, you do not have non-competes, you have something called gardening leave. Essentially you go on a paid holiday for the period of time they do not want you competing. I’ve never seen this been more than a year, normally the length is the notice period you have in your contract with the employer. Most of the time this is like a week or two weeks for low skill jobs. Very skilled jobs tend to have 3 months to allow for finding a replacement or handovers. All of this is negotiable typically when you actually end up leaving.

Yeah what actually should be talked about is non compete vs non-disclosure.. NDA's make sense.. i help company develop something.. i can't just leave and make the same thing as a new business.. or go to a competitor and make the same thing there..

They would pay you for 2 years of vacation.

Even if you knew any trade secrets, that would make you more valuable to the company, and therefore you should get a higher wage and better working conditions just so you dont leave for the competitor.

You were not forced to sign it. People need to quit saying this.

​@@nicwelchIf you desperately need the money, then yes, you can be forced... If not taking the job means you can't pay for mortgage/rent/food/etc... are you really going to argue with aren't forced?

Imma say it: they should do away with trade secrets, too, if they care about making the economy competitive. Trade secrets do nothing but stifle innovation because a few greedy bastards want their advantage. When toddlers do this, we teach them to share, to stop saying "No!" and "mine!" and to quit snatching stuff out of each other's hands. Why do we accept this behaviour in adults?

@@nicwelch Some companies will not hire someone if they don't sign a non-compete contract. If one refuses to sign a non-compete clause then the company could retract the offer.

The US has a long way to go with catching up to other more developed nations. The US is falling far behind in some aspects and I hope it catches up soon

Thomas Sowell mouthpiece for the Reagan Revolution , Milton Friedman, PRO monopoly advocate(the Anti Trust paradox) Robert Bork, The Koch Brothers(who FUNDED the anti democratic Citizens UNITED Decision that allows them to LEGALLY buy and sell YOUR POLITICIANS), the Heritage foundation, Cato Institute, Americans for Progress etc etc etc etc. Billionaire libertarian pushed (NEVER) trickles down neoliberal REAGANOMICS that has GUT CUT DEMONIZED AND PRIVATIZED the USA from the wealthiest largest middle class in history to the 2nd Gilded age IN JUST A BOOMER’s LIFESPAN??? Yeah totally going to take HIS WORD FOR ANYTHING🙄

I remember that story. I think I watched the video a year or two ago.

This man is the GOAT, no wonder the social activists demonize him. A brain is a menace.

@@DavidPereiraLima123 Thomas Sowell may have some interesting things to say, but the idea that an absurd extrapolation of his anecdote is supposed to convince anyone of anything is pretty funny. For anyone wanting to see someone critically discuss Sowell's work: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/roqbh46KaYSVtGQ.html

@@CesarFerraro2 Want another one? My mother worked as a contractor for good Uncle Sam a long, long time ago. The office she was working for did 1 binder a day... For the entire office. She said WTF? And took home a whole box of binders. She completed five binders a night by herself. When it was discovered, EVERYONE in the office got really upset with her and said it was making everyone else look bad and that she needed to stop or the quota would increase because of her efficiency. It paid well. Hourly. They were milking the contract. Yeah....

His anti-gay rants from 20 years ago have not aged well.

@@dansanger5340 only if you think truth isn't timeless

@@dansanger5340 Nice ad hominem fallacy right there. Anything true which Sowell says, is true, regardless of whatever else he may or may not have said.

@@TheWolfgangGrimmer You seem to have committed the straw man fallacy by reading more into my simple observation than I ever intended. It was not intended as an argument against the question at hand, but as a caution against trying to turn someone into an oracle, which can lead to the appeal to authority fallacy. Even though I agree with much of what Thomas Sowell says, I am turned off by the hero worship that seems to follow him, because he has also put forward arguments that lack intellectual rigor.

@@dansanger5340 That _might_ be fair, except that I doubt you just equally call out every instance of over-glorifying of someone you ever witness. Last I checked no one really makes that kind of effort. Which raises the question, why make the effort to react to this one in particular, and without bothering to give any nuance to the claim?

But does it even make sense in that case? I imagine that pretty much everything of value would be held in IP rather than the founder just starting up a business again from scratch. It's back breaking to come up with IP. Well, I suppose you could be selling a business that doesn't involve IP but instead involves reputation or connections?

Owners and senior management are not included in the FTC ruling.

The worst timeline

From Cory Doctorow: "The FTC's statutory authority to block noncompetes comes from Section 5 of the FTC Act, which bans "unfair methods of competition" (hard to imagine a less fair method than indenturing your workers). Section 6(g) of the Act lets the FTC make rules to enforce Section 5's ban on unfairness. Both are good law - 6(g) has been used many times (26 times in the five years from 1968-73 alone!)."

Have you heard of delegated legislation? The FTC is enforcing the fairness which is well within the FTC Act

the issue is Congress effectively delegated authority to FTC, the lawsuit will determine whether or not this rule is within the FTC's delegated authority

The FTC is technically not stepping out of their boundaries, they are empowered to police unfair or deceptive business practices by the FTC Act. In terms of the substance, the FTC is sort of creating a new law. But this behavior is not surprising coming from the FTC: they are already the de facto data privacy regulator in the US for more than a decade by now, and created an entire common business practice surround data privacy in the US. One should be blaming the useless Congress who has been spending the past 2 decades plus bickering among each other and not passing useful laws.

Do you not have the concept of "regulations" in Europe, or are you just kind of confused about how the American government works? I can't imagine you guys have your legislature come up with every speed limit for fear of "constitutional overreach". Let me give you a hint: who do you think gave the FTC the power to do this? Was it (a) the supreme court, (b) a paramilitary coup, or (c) a democratically elected legislative body? We don't have to pointlessly fearmonger about the "potential for abuse" either. We already know what that looks like... because we've had several decades of FTC corruption. They did nothing. That's right, a corrupt FTC is an FTC that does nothing at all. In other words, the absolute worst case scenario is identical to the situation you're advocating for where the FTC doesn't have this power.

Out of curiosity, what changed when net neutrality was repealed? What is expected to change when it's restored? From what I remember the Obama Era net neutrality rules weren't anything to do with a neutral internet

@@kawkasaurous Without net neutrality, (for example) Comcast can slow down streams from Netflix (a competing media company) or charge Netflix for "fast lane" status. It's not about content (political neutrality), it's about who can get bandwidth.

@@PeterAllenLab Lets not forget that if Comcast charges Netflix for this "fast lane" status that charge is going to be passed on to the consumer and all the consumer wouldn't even know Comcast is at fault they will just see Netflix price increases.

@@kawkasaurous Not much changed, in part because ISPs expected that it would flip flop as the agency's board members changed, because FCC board membership is not an elected position, what did change was the push to regulate ISPs under Title II classification, which is for common carriers. Net neutrality is important, in essence, it's the idea that ISPs should not shape, slow down, or otherwise prioritize/deprioritize different types of web traffic. Ideally, it should go hand-in-hand with ISPs being classed as common carriers (think how land line phones were regulated, as well as electricity, water, and other essential utilities), which opens ISPs up to being regulated as the essential utility the internet has become, allowing them to push for higher speed for lower prices, as well as giving them more controls of which to work with to make the tens of billions of dollars given to ISPs by the government to improve connectivity that they just do nothing with. NN sort of requires Title II classification to fully work, because it is pretty much guidelines as to how to treat internet traffic, which is to say, the ISPs should treat your connection as a dumb pipe, and not do any real prioritization within reason. Along with Title II, we'd see much better internet speeds, for much lower prices, and Title II also opens up concepts like forcing local loop unbundling, basically translating to opening fiber lines to similar circumstances as the old copper telephone lines (meaning any ISP can offer any service off of it, like DSL in the past). After the Trump administration elected Ajit Pai to the chairman position to the FCC, he basically dropped all attempts to reclassify internet as a common carrier medium, and in fact pushed hard to have it considered as beyond the FCC's control (which is silly, internet a communication medium). But again, very little changed for the average person in part because the effort to charge people out the ass ISPs put in would be undone in 4-8 years anyway, because that's how American politics work.

So, are you a communist?

Imperfect is not the same as unsustainable.

Libertarians tend to have a beautifully ideal, but completely naive and simplistic view on human nature and social cohesion.

Not really I don't think non-competes enforce a free market, it's the opposite and the fact governments allow it for the big players and friends says a lot. Sure people that jerk corporations probably do think it's healthy but not in my eyes. Just more mafias using abusive tactics to people that want a fair a chance at peddling their own trade in a fair market.

"I will call my unwillingness to follow rules I agreed to 'unsustainable.'" - OP

a real one or some loop hole filled vanity law

It's no coincidence that married men have higher rates of success with other women.

Bold of you to assume companies are already not providing the absolute minimum with a non compete on top

​@@bountygiver2I get your and understand the cynicism. However, I think my point stands. If you have a long-term employee, that you are reasonably, confident is going to stay with you, you are more likely to invest in them. Without that investment, everyone is interchangeable and expendable.

It's the few bad employers ruining it for everyone else

In the first case, you should evaluate why the employee left. Training in proprietary stuff should fall under NDA. In the second case - I don't agree with hostile takeovers in general, and I definitely think people should be allowed to leave a workplace - and even start their own business, yes - if they have problems with a new employer during a takeover.

Shill

Capitalism works better when businesses have more incentive to compete with each other. 1) They have to provide more value to customers so they can make additional profits so they can pay employees enough to not have them leave. 2) Employees have an incentive to improve their skills they wouldn't with a non-compete - why get better at your job when you can't get hired somewhere else anyway?

@@rossmanngroup where does competition lead to?

​@@rossmanngroupUnfortunately the final goal of capitalism is having no competition and complete dominance within the sector. Once that process is achieved the product/service is forced onto people by governmental designation of resources which is quickly authorized due to the financial "incentives" the corporation facilitates to the representatives. At some point there is not even a product there just the monetary obligation from your gov to this entity which is guaranteed by taxation.

@@absolutium well said, glad to hear some educated folks ;)

@@absolutium thats why the ftc exists they are supposed to prevent monopolies