[consteval]

> But employment did exist then, and it wasn't a new technology or cultural development

kind of, but not really. Because corporations as we know them did not exist. Times were very, very different. A non-compete COULD make sense in mom & pop contexts in a small 1800s town. In a multi-national corporate context things change.

So no, the type of employment we have now and that most people experience did not exist in the 1800s. To me, while both share the word "employment", they're fundamentally different arrangements.

[pdonis]

> corporations as we know them did not exist.

Yes, they did. Corporations existed in the British Empire in the 1600s. The Founders were quite familiar with the concept.

> the type of employment we have now and that most people experience did not exist in the 1800s.

This is simply false as a historical claim. If anything, workers had less leverage relative to corporate employers in the 1800s than they have now.