Personally, I would argue that it’s more just bad business practice; non-competes are inherently protectionist and do not really fit well into the idea of a free-market (in my opinion, at least.)
Also, this magazine is “Neoliberal,” but not in the sense the term is used in leftwing circles. I also doubt many would actually identify themselves as a Neoliberal outside of this magazine.
On this magazine (an offshoot the subreddit, r/neoliberal, which itself is an offshoot of r/badeconomics), it is really about Free trade, competitive markets, pro-immigration, YIMBYism, pro-Carbon taxes, pro-international cooperation, LGBTQ+ rights, Democracy, human rights, civil liberties, due process, etc.
For more context on why it took on the term “Neoliberal” it was originally taken in jest during the US 2016 election where it became very commonplace (on reddit and twitter, at least) for anyone who wasn’t 100% pro-Bernie to be labeled and dismissed as a “Neoliberal shill.” The r/neoliberal subreddit took off, and basically, we have center-left social policies and support free markets.
However, unlike classical liberals and so-called “libertarians” we believe there are instances where the government can correct market failures. (This FTC ruling is one such instance, and controlling interest rates is another.)
While Neoliberalism as a term is often associated with the Thatcher and Reagan eras, many on this magazine decidedly do not agree with much of their thinking and regard some of the major policies as having failed, or at the very least as being ineffective.
What differentiates us from many on the left is we do not believe corporations, businesses, or the pursuit of profits are inherently evil or that government intervention is always the best solution to a problem (or that it would even make many situations better.)
We are also against protectionist policies such as trade tariffs (Jones Act, for example, increases the cost of shipping in and out of the US, passing the cost onto the average American,) unnecessary (or excessive) US occupational licenses (they act as barriers to entry,) and single-family zoning (regarded as one of the a major causes of the housing crisis and a car-centric urban fabric, at least in the US and Canada.)
Neoliberalism is about having faith in the incredible power of competitive markets, which have transformed human society and progress in the last couple of centuries. But not all markets are competitive - and private actors will always have private incentives to impede competition and create monopolies, and occasionally will encounter the opportunity to act on those private incentives.
Neoliberalism isn't libertarianism. I think neoliberals generally favour state intervention when that's targeted at correcting market failures where private and public incentives otherwise become misaligned (for example, introducing carbon taxes).
Aren't non-compete clauses inherently about stifling competition? My instinct is that this is just about promoting competition and the power of the market to do its thing.
In my opinion, these types of agreements should only be allowed if they come with some sort of golden-parachute severance package. Preventing people from working in the fields they are most useful and experienced in once they depart a company (either willingly or not) only benefits their former employer. It doesn’t benefit the employee, hurts competition, and is also (likely) a drag on the economy.
Getting rid of these is a victory for the average American.
Add comment