[happyopossum]

That’s quite an exaggeration - many states disallow or severely limit non-competes, and in many of the states that allow them, they are often unenforced, or easy to get around. So yeah - some people in some parts of the country are locked behind non-competes (if they aren’t willing to move), but it’s hardly everyone.

[wikibob]

That is a gross exaggeration of the situation.

California has a total ban on non-competes.

A very small handful of other states put restrictions on non-competes, but even those generally allow non-competition agreements if time limited, and the employee makes over ~$100k.

It’s widely accepted that prohibiting non-competes has been a significant factor in the tech industry success in California.

As one example, it is well known that Amazon aggressively enforces non-competes, even against line engineers.

[matwood]

Non-competes without a monetary attachment are hard to enforce from the employer side. Judges don't look kindly to preventing someone from making a living. Of course companies hope the threat of going to court makes people back down - like Amazon who is known bully in this area.

But yes, I wish all states would just ban them outright. Or at least make them require compensation. If an employee is important enough to require a non-compete, then they are important enough to pay during the non-compete time period.

Does CA also ban them as part of an acquisition? I've seen them as part of the sale so everyone doesn't quit the day after the acquisition and start a competitor.

[astrange]

There are no non-competes of any kind in California, at all, ever.