comment: >
  
  
  No one is really free to chose their line of work if they’re well being is physically tied to the will of a corporation
  
  ... and the well-being of their children.
context: The only non-compete that should exist is a five year ban on allowing a politician to go work for a lobbying firm. >
  
  Make it 10. >
  
  Permanent >
  
  Ban their children too >
  
  "These aren't just high-paid executives or scientists who hold secret formulas for Coca-Cola so Pepsi can't get their hands on it," Biden said in a speech about competition in 2021. "A recent study found one in five workers without a college education is subject to non-compete agreements. They're construction workers, hotel workers, disproportionately women and women of color." >
  
  HR guy here.  One dimension of this is that lots of companies broadly require non-competes as an idle threat.  
  They don't expect to ever have to enforce most of them.  And in many states they're simply unenforceable for all but those high-paid execs and scientists.  
  Speaking from just my professional experience, they're simply corporate kayfabe.  Companies pretend to make a threat, employees pretend to agree.  I'd love to see them go away. >
  
  Uh, scientists aren’t paid THAT well.  My non-compete isn’t valid in Oregon because they don’t pay me enough. >
  
  "The freedom to change jobs is core to economic liberty and to a competitive, thriving economy," said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan in a statement. "Noncompetes block workers from freely switching jobs, depriving them of higher wages and better working conditions, and depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand." >
  
  Employer sponsored health insurance is inherently also anti-freedom and fascist.  
  No one is really free to chose their line of work if their well being is physically tied to the will of a corporation 
  There can be no “pulling of the bootstraps” until we are truly free from employer contributions and deductibles thst reset when we change jobs.