Don’t like your job? Quit for a rival firm
Lina Khan hopes to free the American worker
A fifth of American workers have a non-compete clause in their contract, barring them from leaving to join a rival. Owing to a new rule issued by the Federal Trade Commission on April 23rd, these clauses may soon be voided. Advocates hope this will inject dynamism into the American economy and lead to stronger wages; critics warn it will stifle investment.
The debate about non-compete clauses is an old one, dating back to Europe in the 1400s. Courts generally came down on the side of apprentices trying to escape the clutches of their mentors. In the Industrial Revolution, though, views shifted. The main argument in support of non-compete clauses—then and now—is that they protect firms with an understandable interest in defending trade secrets. With them in place, companies become more willing to make hefty investments and train up workers, confident that they will reap the benefits from both. A recently published study by Jessica Jeffers of HEC Paris found that when American states make non-competes easier to enforce, firms increase their physical investments by as much as 39%.
Explore more
This article appeared in the Finance & economics section of the print edition under the headline "Hop to it"
Finance & economics April 27th 2024
More from Finance and economics
What campus protesters get wrong about divestment
Will withdrawing money hurt Israel?
Hedge funds make billions as India’s options market goes ballistic
The country’s retail investors are doing less well
Russia’s gas business will never recover from the war in Ukraine
Hopes of a Chinese rescue look increasingly vain