[tombert]

I don't understand how you don't understand that. It's a power differential that frustrates people. You can be fired from an employer without it affecting their bottom line, but having it drastically affect your bottom line.

Also, what the hell are you talking about about them "not demanding loyalty"? Big companies demand loyalty all the time. When I worked at an Apple, I had to sign a whole bunch of non-compete forms. Talk about "demanding loyalty"; I technically wasn't even allowed to open a Github issue on an open source project without permission. The only leverage you have as an employee is quitting.

[bilvar]

The same way a company can find another employee, the employee can find another job. Also claiming that leaving a company doesn't affect a company's bottom line reflects more about the quality of the work the employee does, rather than the economic reality of the company. If your work doesn't affect the bottom line maybe you shouldn't have the job, that's why you are getting paid to have an impact on the bottom line, not to drink latte, have yoga sessions and raising your children while you are 'working' from home.

Where did I actually say that companies do not ask for loyalty?

[tombert]

I think your first paragraph is sort of self-evidently silly so there's not much to say there. Good employees leave, or die, and most of the time it doesn't kill the company.

> Where did I actually say that companies do not ask for loyalty?

You didn't explicitly, but you did say "worker makes it fairer to demand loyalty but not reciprocate". I'm claiming that the non-competes already demand a lot of loyalty, but the companies do not reciprocate it.

[bilvar]

> I think your first paragraph is sort of self-evidently silly so there's not much to say there. Good employees leave, or die, and most of the time it doesn't kill the company.

Yes it's so self-evident that even you argument for it is moving the goalposts. Just to remind you, we are talking about an employee leaving affecting the bottom line of the company, not the company shutting down.

> You didn't explicitly, but you did say "worker makes it fairer to demand loyalty but not reciprocate". I'm claiming that the non-competes already demand a lot of loyalty, but the companies do not reciprocate it.

Loyalty is implicit, not some terms you sign on a contract. Duh, you have to follow those for legal reasons, not because of 'loyalty'. But let's indulge you.

If your contract has a non-compete and you want to see reciprocation of the loyalty, ask to add in your contract the terms that would made you feel it's a fair exchange of loyalty. Otherwise don't sign the contract. But of course you will sign it because you like that fat paycheck high-tech/finance is giving you - won't accept to work for those pesky companies that can't afford non-competes for a lower salary. You make it sound like non-competes are a common thing except for the ridiculously well-paid white-collar jobs.

[tombert]

> You make it sound like non-competes are a common thing except for the ridiculously well-paid white-collar jobs.

At least in the United States, they're reasonably common even in startups. I don't know what to tell you.