SuperCitizen

A non-compete agreement is a contractual clause that restricts an employee from working for a competitor or starting a competing business for some period after leaving a job. Use of non-competes has grown well beyond senior executives, with many studies finding they cover meaningful shares of low- and middle-wage workers.

The Federal Trade Commission moved to issue a sweeping rule restricting most non-competes; courts and state legislatures have taken varied positions. Several states have long prohibited or heavily restricted non-competes; many others have moved to limit them.

Defenders argue non-competes protect legitimate investments in training, trade secrets, and customer relationships. Critics argue they suppress wages, depress entrepreneurship, and disproportionately hurt workers who lack bargaining power to negotiate them out.

Spectrum of framings

How adherents on each side of the conventional left / center / right spectrum frame this issue — written so each camp would recognize the framing as charitable.

left

Progressives largely favor a broad federal ban, citing evidence that non-competes suppress wages and mobility for ordinary workers far beyond any legitimate trade-secret rationale.

center

Moderates often favor restricting non-competes for low- and middle-wage workers and narrowing their scope, while preserving them in narrowly defined contexts such as senior executives or sale of a business.

right

The right is split: many conservatives defend non-competes as freely negotiated contracts protecting employer investments; others view broad use of non-competes for ordinary workers as anti-competitive.

Perspectives

Each perspective is presented in terms its advocates would recognize, with the concerns they treat as paramount. None is endorsed.

Ban broadly

Non-competes lock workers into jobs, suppress wages, and depress new-business formation. Evidence from states that restrict them shows higher wages and more entrepreneurship without measurable harm to firm investment.

Wage suppression
Worker mobility
Entrepreneurship and dynamism

Tiered restriction

A blanket ban sweeps too broadly. Restricting non-competes for low- and middle-wage workers — while preserving narrowly tailored ones for senior executives and in the sale of a business — captures most of the benefit with fewer unintended effects.

Protecting low-wage workers
Targeted use for executives and sales
Reasonableness standards

Preserve negotiated contracts

Non-competes protect legitimate employer investments in training, R&D, and customer relationships. Existing tools — trade-secret law, reasonable-scope tests, state oversight — already constrain abuses without a sweeping federal ban.

Protecting employer investments
Freedom of contract
Federalism in employment law