[vedanta]

Nevada is too different, the combination of non-enforceable non-competes and the nice weather can be duplicated elsewhere in CA easiest, and this is happening. If your state has big corporate HQs forget about getting non-enforceable non-competes.

[ghaff]

No one is forcing you as a company to make employees sign a non-compete, enforceable or otherwise. I've generally lived in states where non-competes are enforceable and I've signed exactly one.

[s73ver]

I think they're speaking from the perspective of founders who, until they start the company, do have day jobs somewhere. In California, there's no issue, but in other states with enforceable non-competes, that can be a pretty big hinderance to starting the company.

[vedanta]

It's not about you or a company, once the market tolerates non-competes, employers will use them for any sort of a knowledge-based position. People will shift jobs less, wages will lower, followed by other economic effects of slightly lower wages.

[ThrustVectoring]

Wouldn't CA companies/employees not get pushed to sign unenforceable non-competes (because they're in CA, so it doesn't help the employer any, so they don't push for it in contracts)? So if you're poaching from CA anyhow...

[vedanta]

It's the employees' choice, take a lifetime of lower earnings or not, everything else being the same.