Feb 3, 2023Liked by Nilesh Kavthekar

Great discussion of both sides. It's a bit ironic that other individual freedoms are held at a higher standard than freedom to work. Non-competes limit individual freedom at the benefit of "trade secrets". As you point out, trade secret laws and corporate espionage can still be prosecuted in the absence of non-competes anyway, just more burdensome for the plaintiffs to prove what's indeed a trade secret and proprietary IP.

Expand full comment
Feb 6, 2023·edited Feb 6, 2023Author

I like that framing of "which individual freedoms are more valued by our laws than others?"

Some have also pointed out that countries like the US have passed laws allowing for the relatively free movement of capital, whereas labor faces significantly more constraints in its movement.

Non-competes are one example of this of course. Michael Sandel (Harvard) also points out that we tax income from capital gains at a much lower rate than income from labor. Of course, there may be efficiency arguments to tax these at different rates.

But there is this question of, which has more freedom based on our current laws: capital or labor?

Expand full comment

Most of the support of non-competes relies on trusting corporations to do the right thing (train and retain their employees)... and when has that ever worked? Companies are already well protected by NDAs and trade secret laws, they don’t need non-competes! Get rid of em

Expand full comment