FTC Non-Compete Ban Can DESTROY American Businesses 

Non-competes have always been trash

This is bullshit PBD.

This is NOT true. Companies have overreached. Hamstringing CEO's & BD guys is one thing. Hamstringing the working class is another.

Imagine a prenup that says you can't date another person for 5 years within 100 miles of your ex... That is a better analogy for a non-compete.

Non-compete has gotten ridiculous. Get rid of it. Comparing to marriage is apples and oranges.

Non-compete is anticapitalist PBD. No company owns my ability to work. Companies have consistently removed incentives to work for them. There are no pensions anymore, and pay has not risen to match. Yes governemnt regulation and other factors exist but the working class can win from this.

Are you serious? Those should’ve been illegal from the beginning. It’s anti-capitalism, allows companies to treat their workers like trash knowing they can’t leave to a similar company, and forces workers to either stay at shitty jobs or start over by moving industries. This is a massive win for everyone who has a job.

I don’t know how but you’ve managed to package an unbiased analysis that is more entertaining than the sensationalized segment of economic and financial news. Thank you for your efforts to be the signal and not the noise. I understand that the economy is currently in a downturn and that we must wait for things to get better

Companies bully employees.

lol seriously? How dare the FTC make it easier for employees to switch jobs? Who the employees think they are? Free human beings?

The emotional loading of the divorce analogy is so fucked up. Imagine arguing that a person ought not look for better employment in the same industry because “you’re tearing this family apart” fucking absurdist argument. The only reason to bring this into the argument is to make people feel bad for corporations that would never feel bad about firing you to reduce cost and raise profits.

I’ve been laid off twice, why should the employee be held to the standard of loyalty, but companies can leave you on the side of the road like a cheap hooker with ZERO repercussions You can’t have your cake and eat it too

PBD then says “some people say non-compete is not a good thing” then lists 4-5 arguments that people in favor of non-compete use. PBD is in full blown propaganda mode with this one. He wants you to believe that those in favor of greater employee mobility are for non-compete. While saying those who’s priority are trade secrets and intellectual property are against non-compete. That’s some crazy shit right there with that attempted bait n switch

It favors workers at the expense of companies. It promotes a competitive job market. The companies that compensate and value their workers more will prevail.

You are dead wrong on this. I worked in corporate American before I built both of my companies. I would be threatend with lawsuits by former employers if I went to work for another company in the same field. There is a difference between stealing customers and IP and just competing. And companies have no loyalty to employees in Corp America so why do they have leverage

Good. Non compete is stupid. Have you ever heard of a waiter that cant leave where he works now and work at the restaurant across the street? Its FORCING people to be a slave to their employer. Freedom means you should be able to work wherever you want. Freedom should mean freedom to work for who you want to.

If you are going to keep someone from working at another comoany than they should have to pay the employee for that time.

Youre argument is equating a lifelong covenant, a marriage and a business contract? Totally bad analogy, and not an equal situation. You are not one with your company you are an employee, separate entities.

Non compete is sh*t. I work for a UK Software Company that enforces this for all workers in US, AUS, and UK offices. We are top 3 in our market niche, which means that non compete covers ALL good options out there. I'm lucky because I have a sub-contract agreement so I can leave any moment, no questions asked. However, colleagues from UK/US/AUS offices have a ton of issues because they can't easily go to a different job. Which also means they can't really negotiate better salary effectively because they are "chained" to the company. Actually, Patrick, you're a free market guy. Where's the FREE MARKET in non-compete?

Listen I’m an esthetician. One of my employers tried to have me sign a non compete agreement that said a whole bunch of crazy shit like if I left I couldn’t work within 25miles of the business. If I left I would have to MOVE 25MILES AWAY TO PAY RENT / FEED MY KIDS. 🤯 That’s just one of the several different beauty chains I’ve worked for that made me sign something like that. Luckily someone eventually told me that in California that’s not something these business can enforce. If they “took me to court” like they did threaten to at one point, it wouldn’t hold up. You cannot convince me that type of control is justified in any way. If a company has a revolving door that’s because the business isn’t taking care of their people to make them want to stay. Period Your take on this is wild to me

Non competes from my experience has been a way to threaten employees and tie their hands while when the company doesn’t live up to the employee’s expectations. It’s like only one person in a relationship being able to divorce. This was a good call by the FTC. Companies need to do better.

Alot of the laws around marriage and children need redoing.

I’m a lowly maint tech. I’m in a non-compete. Zero companies care about people like me. It’s all stock value and dividend pay out. But at the same time, I can’t leave. This is .005% win for the tiny guys like me that businesses careless about. I’m a 23 year guy and I’m sought after in my field, but not like I’m gonna be in that $150k area. Maybe this might a reason to actually Care about the people their companies are built on, not just their stock value.

Marriage is a terrible analogy. Marriage is a lifelong commitment. Employment is only committed as long as the moment. If a company offered me a lifetime commitment, we may have something different.

You're only worried about this as a business owner. NO respect for the EMPLOYEE! I had to sign a non compete with my last company then was let go a year later, meaning technically I can't work in the same field as I was in. So I've now been unemployed for 14 months and trying to get back into the IT field from material handling and because my previous job was nearly 10 years of material handling, I'm out of date in the IT field. The non compete only benefited my ex employer and I got screwed!

Employers will swap an employee with a cheaper option as soon as they can. Lets not pretend that their commitment is like in a marriage.

Of course a business owner hates non competes lol this is bullshit Pat, pay and respect employees and they won’t leave for the competition…..

Free markets mean free flow of capital, that includes the free flow of labor. If I rent a piece of equipment to help me with construction labor, I can't turn around and tell the business that rented me the equipment that they can't rent it out to someone else after I return the equipment because it would compete against me. Non competes are overused in the market.

Entry-level truck drivers I've been forced to sign these agreements sometimes for 3 or more years. This enables companies to pay them below average salary..

AMS33K has the most potential to do more than X10. ETH and BTC will most likely do a X5-X6, but that's fine for me. Gotta look for better entry points while I stake IRIS and PGEN, then wait for Polygen's next raise as I also look at their new partnership with Kenzo Ventures.

The majority of employees just want to go to a better job in the same industry, without changing career paths. Non-compete clauses are bs.

Nonsense. I work in an industry that uses noncomps and they are trash. If you could leave and take your business with you, it would make the employer less likely to take advantage of you. I was recently laid off and I had over 150 accounts. Not only was I not able to communicate with those accounts, I couldn't communicate with any accounts that were assigned to me! So I was employed with the same company for 20 years and within a mater of minutes, I was unable to work in the same industry unless I left the state....

As a divorced man who lost his house in the divorce I am for this rule

I understand PBD's point, however, here is a real world case that I mentioned in another video about non-compete agreements. My wife was working for company A that had a contract with company B, where my wife performed her job. Company A's contract with company B ended and therfore company A no longer had any work for my wife. Then company B contacted my wife and offered her a job. Compnay A said that they would sue my wife if she took the job because it violated her non-compete agrrement, even though they could not/would not offer any salary or job for my wife. It was a completely rediculous situation, if a company doesn't want an employee to go work for a competitor, then offer the employee more money or benefits to retain them.

I'm a sales rep and it's clear that at a corporate and management level they are quicker to beat you down knowing that you're tied to a non-compete. Getting rid of non-competes could force the higher ups to think about making the company their employees work for more attractive and would strive to keep their employees.

Your marriage analogy is deeply misleading. Someone agreeing to work `FOR` a company and someone agreeing to partner `WITH` another person cannot be equated.

Non-compete clauses were abused. The industry was left unchecked. Since they didn't check themselves, the government stepped in. You had sandwich companies not letting minimum wage workers take jobs from other sandwich companies. PBD didn't do his homework as to how non-competes were abused. I really don't want to hear from someone who refuses to educate themselves on the problem with non-competes. He just cares about what affects him. Fair enough. Don't be surprised when people bring a ruling down that don't care about your interests. I normally agree with PBD, but this was a shit take.

Pdb the definition of a shady car salesman.

If 1 in 5 people have signed a non-compete it really means this clause is being abused a lot and used for other purposes. For sure a ban will allow people to change jobs easier but this should make employers care more about key people in their organization.

*This administration has no ideal how we Americans are suffering. I feel sympathy for people with disability. A lot of families are financially struggling to survive, yet many are sleepwalking...imagine investing $2,000 and receiving $10,450 in 4days.*

Yeah, this just means that you can now leave a crappy business and go direct to their competitors. Only people who lose are crappy managers who can't retain employees.

From what I understand the biggest jump in wages comes from moving to another job. This will help American's increase their earnings. Its up to the company who currently employs them to give them incentives to stay, not tie them down to a contract. One of the biggest issues is employees not seeing a return in their wages and benefits in relation to an increase in their productivity. I think this is a good step that helps most Americans earn what they're worth without giving power to unions.

This entire topic just reminds me of a quote, "There is no greater slave than the slave who thinks he's free" (speaking on the position of the employee).

Patrick as a professional who has worked in IT for 30 years, noncompete clauses only ever protect businesses at the detriment of the employees. The job of a business is to make money within the rules and regulations of the government in which it operates. The role of the government, is to protect the people from hostel entities foreign and domestic. A noncompete is simply a money, saving opportunity for companies in collusion with other companies to create a payment band system, Therefore eliminating the ability of employees to actually compete in the marketplace for better pay. All you have to do is look at IT salaries over the last 20 years…

I believe AMS33K will conservatively hit $5.00 by 2025. That's a 80x return from it's current price with very little downside. I'm buying all I can.

I rarely disagree with PBD, but non-competes give the employer the ability to mistreat their employees knowing they can't can't go anywhere. I'm a graphic artist, and I had a past employer that made me sign a non-compete that said I couldn't work for another company doing graphic design in an undefined geographical proximity to the company. It basically made it impossible for me to do find another job in the area in which I lived. They're often too broad, and ambiguous on purpose. I'm glad their gone. Oh, and I am an entrepreneur who started his own company saying this!

Bro these companies don’t invest in you as it is, so why would they give a shit if you leave? I’m literally teaching myself how to do my own job through trial and error and Google.

Power to the People..... Learn to out innovate

Freedom over corporate greed

Time to sell your kidneys and go all in for AMS33K 💎👊

non competes are garbage ... they should have been banned a long long time ago. Don't want your employees leaving to a competitor? pay them more, give them better benefits or treat them better.

I was under a non-compete. Left that organization & went to work for a competitor. Went silent on social media for 2 years. How was my previous employer to know that I was working for a competitor? They had no clue. Now I compete directly against them as an owner.

I tend to agree with you, but the problem is companies use that to take advantage of their employees. Pay them what they’re worth hospitals r notorious for this

This should have been banned ages ago. Its pure digusting greed. There is no argument period. Anyone who is saying this ban is bad is a parrot for corporate greed or is a greedy exploiting business owner. I was shocked this ban was even needed. Shameful

I have a shitty job, my employer has made my job more difficult for less pay. Everyone whos left has been threatened by non-competes and taken into litigation. Its a free marketplace! if I want to quit, I shouldn't be forced to change careers.

My girlfriend has been an estitician for 4 years and because of this she is able to go on her own she opens at the end of this month and already has 30 clients booked!!

Non competes are not free market. I can understand how a company would want to protect the time and money they may have spent to train an employee and they want to be protected with a non compete. But it's also unfair to keep someones skills they have developed from reaching the marketplace. A non compete stops the employee from making money and keeps valuable skills from the marketplace.

Here's my take on non-competes: Anything that can be of financial concern to a company you exit has to be preserved, protected, and is considered their own IP/property, yes. Non-competes historically have been used to ensure that for a set period of time, nobody could go to work for another corner of the same industry, and risk using anything that could be of benefit to another company that could damage the prior one. Usually, a full year was enough because a year later, any potential information would be aged and likely not worth a thing to another business that the prior one had. But here is the thing, too: You're forcing someone who leaves Job A, who has all this experience, training, feedback, capability, to be kept from continuing that work in a Job B where it would be most relevant. You're cutting in on the person's livelihood by hindering their ability to work and make a living. As I said, the ONLY concern that a company should have is when information that is exclusive to them is used by a competitor to leverage a drop in business. But how do you know that will happen? You have to wait for it to happen. If one of your employees leaves, goes to work for a competitor, and all of a sudden has taken some of your business away, then you could potentially leverage it into a lawsuit and claim that this employee damaged your business with what they know. If it's getting an inside scoop on taking a client, or a stream of revenue, away from one company, and having next company leverage it to then profit and grow, and the timing correlates with one specific employee...then there's a case. On the other hand, nothing happens. The employee goes to work for the competitor, they get an employee they pay more to hire on with, and things continue on as normal. Non-competes, to put it simply, have their benefits and their drawbacks. But the only time that there should be legal action is when there's sufficient evidence and cause that an employee working for a competitor legitimately damages a company's bottom line (hurts them financially). Otherwise, let the employee have the means to continue working with what general knowledge they know, training they have, experience that they have.

PBD your marriage example is absolutely terrible. Men and Women are not “employees” of their partners. This is mentally of a shallow, materialistic person who sees marriage as just a “business” relation. Bottomline, employees love this, owners don’t.

If comparing to marriage, it would be more accurate to say the husband can treat his wife like shit, and if she decides to leave, then she isn’t allowed to date any other men for at least two years. That’s what companies are doing to their employees these days. Ending noncompetes is long overdue. Silicon Valley is in California, where noncompetes have been unenforceable for years. If it didn’t stop them, then the worry this will be bad for business is nonsense.

I think non-competes are terrible for any employees below any managerial positions. especially when fewer and fewer companies give any business stack incentives to employees, companies have been pulling incentives from people for decades. companies constantly add workload to employees without compensation increases which just makes them want to leave.

If you can't keep your employees wanting to work for you, then it seems anticapitalistic to force non-competes.

NDAs are more than sufficient to protect an employer from losing trade secrets. Non-competes cripple the economy and stifle growth. If a company wants to retain an employee, they can pay more or risk losing the employee to a competitor that provides better benefits, pay, and work environment. Or the employee might start their own business. That is how capitalism works. When entire industries use non-competes, it prevents this and truly does create a monopoly, which prevents new employees from being able to avoid signing them and stops employees from leaving. Perhaps the employer has a terrible manager or supervisor that HR or even higher management doesn't discipline or remove for whatever reason. The only effective way for the employees to get their message across becomes leaving for a better work environment. PBD, you are thinking like a dictator when it comes to non-competes. The marriage comparison is horrible but if you want to use it, here's how dumb it is. A significant number, if not majority, of marriages struggle as a result of financial problems. Under your argument the employee should stay with a company when they are treated like crap or undervalued due to a market controlled by non-competes. This in turn causes undue stress on the employee's health and marriage. The married couple continues to struggle with one parent working so the other parent is able to raise their child. However, the bills start coming in for medical issues as a result of the crappy health insurance offered by the employer. The couple falls deeper into debt and more and more arguments as the parent that works cannot find a new job that pays better and offers better health benefits. Eventually, the parent not working calls it quits because the stress and arguments about bills and debt is too much. Or perhaps the parent working goes and gets a second part-time job and then is never home to spend time with their partner and child. The partner becomes disconnected, unloved, and so on until they leave the partner working two jobs.

I agree with banning non-competes. They got as far as sandwich shops using them! A SANDWICH SHOP! They ridiculous! There should be more competition in emerging technologies and energy! I totally agree with it there! There shouldn’t be an Amazon of tech and energy. I also think big monopolies like Amazon, google, etc should be broken up! And data collection should be banned

I phones are garbage. They are not the best phones out there.

Non-compete is a stupid idea to begin with. Companies were practically using the law unfairly to restrict employees' choices. I'm pro business in almost everything but this is not it man.

Terrible argument. Executives and higher level managers leave jobs for better jobs all the time, but GOD forbid the average individual contributor tries to leave for better wages and conditions.

I’ve seen friends get locked out of their career because a greedy company wanted to retain cheap labor and abuse the employee knowing the employee couldn’t move or find employment elsewhere where away from the hostile work environment. Employers have abused this non-compete clause in industries that have no good reason to have a non compete clause. The FTC made the right call for employees, and I commend their decision. If companies need to protect trade secrets, they’ll have to find another way besides the sudo-servitude associated with non-compete contracts.

I had non compete that expire 2 years after my resignation now I get engaged with the company that used to subcontract me through a third party company and not have to share my income!!!

Shocking. PBD against the working man. Good grief

I believe what you said, deliver as a boss and you won't have to worry.

Isn't it about time that employers have to pay attention to employees and foster them so that they stay instead of treating employees as discardable?

As I am watching this I just received an email inviting me to a webinar in which they explain their stance and reasoning behind this. As a small business owner who spends WEEKS training my team on products and sales I am horrified by this. Basically I spend the money training and a competitor can wait and take my trained teammates away for a dollar or two more an hour. This is the harsh reality that the Dems are not thinking of. They think all their policies are helping but these people have never operated a small business at all.

Rare PBD L. Non-compete agreements are a hinderance to the functioning of a free market

Imagine Non-Compete went to US soldiers and when they left military service, not allowed to work for a private security company. PBB is full of shhht.

It's simple. if an engineer is valuable enough, you have to pay them to not work in their field of expertise if they no longer work for your company for a period of x years. Pay to play.

I’ve never liked that rule. Be more cautious who you hire and find ways to keep them.

I’m a senior caregiver working for a company where I can’t take clients from them for a year after I quit. I understand the reasoning. They put the time into advertisement and getting clients, etc. It’s not fair for me to take clients away from them if I decide to leave. I wouldn’t want to run a business if that was allowed.

As a business owner with 150+ employees, we have never and would never have anyone sign a non compete.

Thanks for the written phrases / periodically placed. People retain information in different ways / thanks 🎩

Sorry but that’s a stupid analogy. Your job is not your life. You’re thinking like an entrepreneur and are totally biased. I’m also an entrepreneur for 30 years, but some of the non competes now are ridiculous. In several countries you cannot prevent employees from practicing their trade or profession with another company. That’s actually good, although as an entrepreneur, it’s a double-edged sword. Some countries allow a limited time period in a specific niche or industry, like two years, but not total non compete. For example, I had a full service ad agency and tech company, but our focus was outdoor sports, so I had a non-compete that said they could not start up a business targeting outdoor sports, specifically hunting, shooting, military/LE products, or work for another company targeting that niche. There were also non-hire and non-solicitation provisions, so a client could not scoop my designer or vice versus, but I definitely could not prevent them from leaving to start their own agency or work for another. That would effectively be taking away their ability to practice their trade. And as for the wife thing. A marriage is not even close to a business with employees. It’s a partnership based on love and family values (hopefully) and it’s rarely an equal one. Employees usually Donny even have a stake or claim to the business, nor does the business owe anything to the employee outside the agreed upon trade of money for their time and skills.

This tells a lot about PBD . You can’t leave his MLM scheme and start your own MLM scheme .

Non compete is anti capitalism I bet PBD MADE his boys signed one. That's why hes making a case for it as if its complicated

Most non-competes are not enforcable anyway, just a scare tactic for those who don't know better.

I work in sales. I have to jump to an entirely new field every time I want a new job. I am currently stuck at a company for this reason. They don’t pay me enough to cover my bills, and every other company in this field offers more cash. I love the field I’m in and don’t want to jump into something else. I’m tired of being stuck. I love that they are giving me freedom from companies that don’t care about the worker.

Best Change Ever. Non-competes are an anchor on competition. Just a way to drive down salaries and prevent startups.

Non compete agreements have been so grossly abused that abolishing them is the right thing to do. It's one thing to impose them at the executive and senior management level, but corporations feel they have license to impose them on all their employees. Greedy corporations brought this upon themselves.

If only we lived in a time where ethics prevailed. Now that they're all but gone, it's every man for himself.

The only situation where non-compete contracts make sense is in situations where someone works for a firm that is representing the buyer side of a transaction, then in the middle of negotiations switches to firm on the seller's side of that transaction. In that very narrow situation, a non-compete clause makes sense.

Thank you 🎩

I work in the service industry, service technicians use the company’s equipment to poach clients, use inside information to undercut prices. It affects the whole company

I was curious what he would say because in my mind PBD might be the only person who will try to argue for them because People like PBD are the people who benefit from non-compete. Nothing wrong with it but was just curious.

This narrative of "well, the mid-level exec will just leave the business and take all the clients" never plays out in reality, so I don't know where it comes from. If your competitor is competing for better business, then they should take all of your clients... that's how competition works.

Great video.

Why shouldn’t I be able to go to another company with my skills those make it easier for companies to understand pay their employees. Corporate profits have never been higher. This is bullshit PBD

How can an employer expect a person who earns less than 150k to not work for 2 years? That's insane. Full marks for the FTC. The rules and regulations they've placed on executives and earning 150k are perfect.

Most videos I watch at 2X speed but PBD speaks at the perfect pace for me 😂. Been watching you since vision-boards - you’re a very inspirational person! I appreciate how you fairly discuss both sides of a story and still have the confidence to voice your own personal opinion!

It's nice to follow PBD because it's easy to agree with his values until you realize he runs a sportsbook called insurance and gets to be the guy at the top who wants whats good for the guy at the top. The bettors/policy holders are disposable and his audience is far more likely to be a policy holder He's an out of touch CEO who knows that premiums would be worth more to most people invested and rolled over.

I've been hurt by non-competes.... I had a 2 year and when I finally got back to my old customers I could only retain less than 20% of them.

I mean I do get that from a corporate standpoint this could feel unstable but at the same time from an employee standpoint perhaps that encourages the corporate side to be more considerate of their people as people and not just as numbers!!