It is interesting to hear the regional takes on this. In Texas, after being involved in the startup world for 20 years, I have never seen a company that didn't require a non-compete - they're just totally ubiquitous.
And the ironic thing is all these politicians talk about wanting to turn some place into "the next Silicon Valley", when much research had been written on the fact that the unenforceability of non-competes in CA is one of the biggest factors in the rise of SV. The tech corridor near Boston had lots of the same "base ingredients" as SV, but non-competes made the startup scene there much less dynamic.
It's just lip service to gain an advantage against political opponents who can't be bothered to even discuss increasing technology in the local economy. The policies themselves won't change until practically all representatives are elected on a technology platform. The policies of Silicon Valley followed the local economy's dependence on technology; non-competes were abolished in Silicon Valley because local politicians couldn't survive without vocally supporting the technology industry.
> The policies of Silicon Valley followed the local economy's dependence on technology; non-competes were abolished in Silicon Valley because local politicians couldn't survive without vocally supporting the technology industry.
Sorry, but that is nonsense. California's primary law against non-competes, section 16600, was passed in 1872. In many ways California was just lucky. An intensely dynamic entrepreneurial hotspot grew up due to the environment in CA at the time, not the other way around.
I mean Silicon Valley has never been about skating where the puck is, but skating where the puck is going to be. Trying to be "the next" Silicon Valley is always going to fail, because it's fundamentally trying to clone something else in a context that can't work. The failure to create a legal framework where labor has extreme liquidity is just one example of politicians failing to understand how a place like SV can come to exist.
Yea we live in a bit of a bubble in the Bay Area, but frankly having lived and worked outside it bit - I find the lack of insight that everyone has into the bubble is why they will never succeed at copying it. The attitudes too sour, ambitions too small, and people too anxious to take any risks.
And the ironic thing is all these politicians talk about wanting to turn some place into "the next Silicon Valley", when much research had been written on the fact that the unenforceability of non-competes in CA is one of the biggest factors in the rise of SV. The tech corridor near Boston had lots of the same "base ingredients" as SV, but non-competes made the startup scene there much less dynamic.