▲ | kirubakaran a day ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It's funny how states like Washington are notorious for enforceable non-competes, to be "business friendly". Meanwhile California bans non-competes, and its GDP is 4th largest in the world if it were a country! "incumbent friendly" vs "startup friendly" | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | thedufer 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I'm not sure what conclusions you think we should draw from that. California's advantage over Washington is primarily one of size - Washington's GDP per capita is actually about 3% higher than California's. The most generous interpretation I can think of is that you're crediting the non-compete difference for California's far larger population, which is tenuous at best. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | coderatlarge 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WA is busy losing its way on taxation vs value provided for taxes paid and reporting burden. so imo these IP issues are almost second order effects at this point. i personally expect a continued exodus over some of the latest tax hikes for example taxing cap gains beyond a certain amount at an additional 7%. as if niit was not bad enough. if residents could at least see some value from these added taxes maybe it could be something. also the estste tax there kicks in quickly and has hidden gotchas even for people who no longer live there. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[deleted] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | treve 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
One is friendly to existing wealth and the other to innovation and disruption I suppose. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | vessenes 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Washington's non-compete laws are pretty mild these days, although it is true that it's not California. I'm also not sure where you heard that Washington is "business friendly." B&O Tax, labor laws, Seattle city politics and the institution of income tax have all driven significant exodus from WA elsewhere over the last ten years. But, Biden admin + WA laws in 2020 and 2024 make it a relatively low employee load for non-competes, as far as I know. Duration limited to 18 months, auto canceled if an employee is laid off, $120k-$300k income floor under which they are not enforced, details must be offered before job offer made (including a verbal job offer), no venue shifting regardless of location of employer, new employers are granted presumptive standing to sue on behalf of a new hire, agreement only allowed against current customers of the company, not enforceable when selling equity of up to 1% of a company to competitors of the company.. These are not your father's east-coast non-compete agreements! Combined with broad federal support that a non-compete cannot stop you from earning your living, e.g. banning a doctor from working for a competing healthcare system is likely no-go on its own. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | bufferoverflow 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[dead] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | llm_nerd a day ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I'm pro-California and anti-noncompetes, but I'm not sure if this evidence demonstrates much. The banning of non-competes in California is a very recent thing, and if we're doing a correlation thing, California saw the vast bulk of its growth when non-competes were in effect. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|