This feels a tad heavy-handed and will make it tougher to sell a business without hard assets.

It should just be banned for employees or require a payout of (previous salary) * (length of non-compete).

modeless 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

On the other hand it's a boon to those establishing new businesses. And a huge boon to employees. And a boon to the overall economy because it accelerates transfer of know-how out of older and more dysfunctional companies into newer and more nimble ones. This is what made Silicon Valley what it is, starting all the way back with the Traitorous Eight in 1957 and continuing today.

There are so many wannabe "New Silicon Valley" alternative areas that are unwilling to copy the non-compete ban, and subsequently fail to compete with the real Silicon Valley. It's a necessary ingredient in my opinion.

▲

hedgehog 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why would it affect selling a business?

▲

dismalaf 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Previous owner can start the same business immediately and poach all the clients, reducing the value of the sold business to zero. Buyers obviously anticipate this and won't buy the business without the non-compete.

▲

hedgehog 4 hours ago | parent [-]

That would violate a non-compete attached to the sale.

▲

dismalaf 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The posted article is literally about banning non-competes.

	▲	hedgehog 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		...for employees. For business owners there are different rules (IIRC > 1% ownership threshold).

▲

colechristensen 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

As the years go buy I'm gradually more and more in favor of restrictions to sell businesses. They tend to benefit two groups: the people running a successful business and the people running the even more successful businesses buying them.

They tend not to benefit the employees, the customers, the competitors and really anyone else besides a small number of people who are already very successful.

▲

dismalaf 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not all businesses are wildly successful. Some are just successful enough to provide a single family with a middle class income. For some people, selling that is their only hope of retirement.

It's not like the seller never has an option to say no to the non-compete.

▲

logicchains 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Then nobody creates businesses in your state and everyone there loses. What person in their right mind would invest their time and money into a business they wouldn't be able to sell?

▲

richwater 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is quite a stupid idea: you kill all innovative behavior if a creator can't decide to sell his creation.

	▲	colechristensen 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Creators more invested in running their creation than selling it might do a better job.

▲

BurningFrog 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

All voluntary transactions benefits both buyer and seller.

This is as it should be!

	▲	throwaway85825 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		And the government exists to safeguard the benefit of the broader public. Not all transactions are legal.