Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ironic that there isn't a single logical point in this post accusing liberals of being illogical. You just ran out of intelligent stuff to say so you went on a rant about how liberals are mean. By the way, no one here belongs to the "radical left". I was born in Idaho, and I'm a libertarian. Other people who are more conservative than me have also explained why it's not "anti-conservative" or "radical" to care about the freedom of the workforce. You're tilting at windmills.
One can count to 10 before terms like “rant”, “racist” start pouring in. LOL
Ironic that there isn't a single logical point in this post accusing liberals of being illogical. You just ran out of intelligent stuff to say so you went on a rant about how liberals are mean. By the way, no one here belongs to the "radical left". I was born in Idaho, and I'm a libertarian. Other people who are more conservative than me have also explained why it's not "anti-conservative" or "radical" to care about the freedom of the workforce. You're tilting at windmills.
The problem with the non-compete bill is it puts a bigger burden on the worker than on the employer.
If Idaho had more large industries that employed hundreds of workers, it would be a logical law, but we don't have those industries here. And our wages are at the bottom of the national wage scale. Our lower costs of living don't mean squat when the basic minimum wage is so low that it won't meet the costs of life at their most basic level.
And as it is, the law offers no incentive for an employee to learn to excel. Excellence in job performance doesn't bring any reward back to the person- it all goes to the employer. In a state with many factories, just doing the job as it demands is good enough. But in a state with very few big factory jobs, small business is often the only place where jobs become available.
Especially in a non-union state like Idaho. Unions allow workers the opportunity for their wages to stay up to the costs of living. In a state like Idaho, Freedom to Work means nothing but Freedom to Starve for a lot of working families.
So if a person develops a high degree of skill working a job, an employer has no pressure on him to pay the worker what is real value is to the employer. The boss can continue to pay him far less than the worker could make somewhere else for just as long as he wants. And keep all the money that worker makes for him without giving any raise at all.
That's not to say all employers are greedy and don't care about their workers. But there are a lot who are, and in our little towns, there's always someone who will be willing to work for any wage offered. The non-compete law not only stifles opportunity, it stifles civic growth and progress.
If a lumber mill is the only job in town that offers a living wage and the mill closes, the town begins to shrivel up. Because no one can pay the taxes necessary for it to thrive as a community. The teachers' pay gets cut. The town's maintenance crews' pay gets cut. So they leave for places where there's some opportunity to live a better life. The ones who stay are seldom as good at what they do than those who leave.
The non-competition law stacks the deck against the Free Market. If there are too many small businesses in one town offering the same goods and services, some will fail naturally, but when the deck is stacked for the older businesses, it stifles initiative and progress, and does not allow the free market forces any room to do what it does.
Idaho is full of entrepreneurs who open their own small business simply because that's the only way possible to do better financially. Starting a business is always very risky, difficult, and places severe stress on a person and their family, but when it's the only way a guy can do better for him and his family, it's the only option available. The law just increases the odds for him unfairly in a gamble that was very risky to begin with.
As it stands, the worker who strikes out on his own then faces a court battle where all the odds are in his old bosses' favor. Starting a new business always costs a lot up front, so a worker is very seldom as well fixed financially to withstand a non-compete lawsuit.
Last edited by banjomike; 06-03-2018 at 04:19 PM..
By the way, no one here belongs to the "radical left". I was born in Idaho, and I'm a libertarian. Other people who are more conservative than me have also explained why it's not "anti-conservative" or "radical" to care about the freedom of the workforce. You're tilting at windmills.
Regardless of labels we put on ourselves, if we're gonna bring Upton Sinclair into this discussion, let's talk about Upton Sinclair.
He grew up about a mile from where I grew up (Queens, NY). In my youth he was a must-read for us 17-year old revolutionaries, but let's not mince words here about Sinclair. He was an avowed Socialist, even politically. He was also on anarchist, and was also the founder of a communist Utopian colony in New Jersey.
The only reason why Sinclair did not become of member of the Communist Party USA was that he had political ambitions, and it would be too far for bridge for anybody to cross. In fact, many opponents framed his as a Communist, and from his writing and private beliefs, that wasn't too far off.
Sinclair was way to the left of Bernie Sanders. Sinclair is the classical radical left. So if Sinclair's belief is your belief, know that it is textbook radical left.
Hey look, I have no problem with admitting that I was a full-on Marxist on my youth. Knew Engels very well too, even a Leninist. Many people today are closeted Marxists, and have a huge stigma admitting it. In some ways, European Socialists are more honest -- they will admit which school they belong to. American radicals still hide and deny.
The problem with the non-compete bill is it puts a bigger burden on the worker than on the employer.
If Idaho had more large industries that employed hundreds of workers, it would be a logical law, but we don't have those industries here. And our wages are at the bottom of the national wage scale. Our lower costs of living don't mean squat when the basic minimum wage is so low that it won't meet the costs of life at their most basic level.
And as it is, the law offers no incentive for an employee to learn to excel. Excellence in job performance doesn't bring any reward back to the person- it all goes to the employer. In a state with many factories, just doing the job as it demands is good enough. But in a state with very few big factory jobs, small business is often the only place where jobs become available.
Especially in a non-union state like Idaho. Unions allow workers the opportunity for their wages to stay up to the costs of living. In a state like Idaho, Freedom to Work means nothing but Freedom to Starve for a lot of working families.
So if a person develops a high degree of skill working a job, an employer has no pressure on him to pay the worker what is real value is to the employer. The boss can continue to pay him far less than the worker could make somewhere else for just as long as he wants. And keep all the money that worker makes for him without giving any raise at all.
That's not to say all employers are greedy and don't care about their workers. But there are a lot who are, and in our little towns, there's always someone who will be willing to work for any wage offered. The non-compete law not only stifles opportunity, it stifles civic growth and progress.
If a lumber mill is the only job in town that offers a living wage and the mill closes, the town begins to shrivel up. Because no one can pay the taxes necessary for it to thrive as a community. The teachers' pay gets cut. The town's maintenance crews' pay gets cut. So they leave for places where there's some opportunity to live a better life. The ones who stay are seldom as good at what they do than those who leave.
The non-competition law stacks the deck against the Free Market. If there are too many small businesses in one town offering the same goods and services, some will fail naturally, but when the deck is stacked for the older businesses, it stifles initiative and progress, and does not allow the free market forces any room to do what it does.
Idaho is full of entrepreneurs who open their own small business simply because that's the only way possible to do better financially. Starting a business is always very risky, difficult, and places severe stress on a person and their family, but when it's the only way a guy can do better for him and his family, it's the only option available. The law just increases the odds for him unfairly in a gamble that was very risky to begin with.
As it stands, the worker who strikes out on his own then faces a court battle where all the odds are in his old bosses' favor. Starting a new business always costs a lot up front, so a worker is very seldom as well fixed financially to withstand a non-compete lawsuit.
Non-Compete restrictions first would only applies to the top executives, top 5% of labor force. So it does not apply to rank and file. Non-compete is also fairly common in IT, but not so much in other fields.
Secondly, it runs out after 18 months post-employment.
Thirdly, the legal structure of Idaho's law is to build many hoops for the businesses to jump over in order to litigate previous top employees. Idaho used the legal model that other states had also built, but Legislature is re-visiting again, as I understand, to even make it more top-executive friendly.
The only way to increase wages in a sustained way is for a freer market to operate, more competition, less obstructions. Idaho, like many other states has lower wages, but it also has lower COL. From the population in-flow -- that's a sign that Idaho has a QOL that is better than many other states. So let's not follow the example of the states that are worse off in QOL.
Non-Compete restrictions first would only applies to the top executives, top 5% of labor force. So it does not apply to rank and file. Non-compete is also fairly common in IT, but not so much in other fields.
Secondly, it runs out after 18 months post-employment.
Thirdly, the legal structure of Idaho's law is to build many hoops for the businesses to jump over in order to litigate previous top employees. Idaho used the legal model that other states had also built, but Legislature is re-visiting again, as I understand, to even make it more top-executive friendly.
The only way to increase wages in a sustained way is for a freer market to operate, more competition, less obstructions. Idaho, like many other states has lower wages, but it also has lower COL. From the population in-flow -- that's a sign that Idaho has a QOL that is better than many other states. So let's not follow the example of the states that are worse off in QOL.
Again- all this does apply in other states, but not here. There are very few 'top 5%' jobs to be found in this state.
The non-compete agreements here deal with skilled (and non-skilled) trades and blue-collar jobs here, not the white-collar corporate jobs that exist elsewhere.
As I said, here, non-competition agreements stifle competition and the free market. Plenty of jobs can be found, but few that offer any hope for a better future. And far too few pay enough for a good, solid, middle-class way of life.
Believe as you will, but the facts are Idahoans pay more taxes than our surrounding neighbors, have an eroding local tax base throughout the state, and our wages aren't keeping up, nor is our education. None are conducive for sound, prolonged growth over the long run.
To be fair, it was also mostly Idaho natives that let those bs noncompete contracts get as bad as they are. It's hard to claim that you're all about freedom, liberty, and small government when you give employers total control over your future career and the future careers of others. Just because it's private business doing it and not the "government" doesn't mean it's not a screwed up pseudo-socialist overreach into the free market. That attitude is what drives me crazy about some Idahoans - they claim to be libertarian/conservative because they oppose all things government, then they expect everyone to just bend over and let private companies stick their power-hungry hands up in the parts of their business where the sun never shines.
The hypocrisy is mystifying. We could all be working as slave labor under the Great Pharoah Simplot (nothing against that family, just an example), and some Idahoans would still insist that we're more free than everyone else just because we've got a "small government".
Summary: just because you believe in small government doesn't mean you are free, if you let the private sector act like big government.
Now this..was a great post!
To give your rights away to a big company..is just the same as giving them away to the Govt.!
Either way..it's the worker who's getting screwed. I love Idaho..but this is one of it's uglier issues..a small govt.--that's in the pockets of big business..and yes, I include aggro-business in that--is no great bargain!
My idea is if you wish low rents..get together with 4 families..buy 5 acres together...and split payments. Be sure to tie up all the legal issues beforehand..remember once stuck with a deal like that..you're pretty much stuck.
Again- all this does apply in other states, but not here. There are very few 'top 5%' jobs to be found in this state.
The non-compete agreements here deal with skilled (and non-skilled) trades and blue-collar jobs here, not the white-collar corporate jobs that exist elsewhere.
As I said, here, non-competition agreements stifle competition and the free market. Plenty of jobs can be found, but few that offer any hope for a better future. And far too few pay enough for a good, solid, middle-class way of life.
Believe as you will, but the facts are Idahoans pay more taxes than our surrounding neighbors, have an eroding local tax base throughout the state, and our wages aren't keeping up, nor is our education. None are conducive for sound, prolonged growth over the long run.
Thanks mike..I love Idaho..warts and all--but we could use some fairness in this area. It seems that most are focused of the political and cultural battles of our day..Left vs Right....and whenever someone mentions fair wage for fair work they're called a Socialist or worse.
BTW..you'll get a laugh--I was having a talk about this very subject yesterday..and was told,"If you don't like it here..go back to where you came from!"
I guess I better start looking at rentals in CD'A!
Thanks mike..I love Idaho..warts and all--but we could use some fairness in this area. It seems that most are focused of the political and cultural battles of our day..Left vs Right....and whenever someone mentions fair wage for fair work they're called a Socialist or worse.
BTW..you'll get a laugh--I was having a talk about this very subject yesterday..and was told,"If you don't like it here..go back to where you came from!"
I guess I better start looking at rentals in CD'A!
Turns out the guy was from Ventura.
!
I wonder how I would respond! That's pretty funny for us native-borns.
Going back to where I came from would be a 2-block trip down the street for me. The first house in town my parents bought is just down the street from my present home. And my present home was first owned by my first serious girlfriend's parents. I used to walk home from school with her in high school.
I was so familiar with it I didn't even have to come inside for a lookaround when I put an offer on it. After her folks sold it, I knew everyone who owned it after them!
It was no big deal walking her home. The high school was across the parking lot from by back door, and just a block away from her house up the street.
I'd sure like trying to explain all that to your guy from Ventura...
Yeah. Be careful. if you are a smoker and you misrepresent yourself and move into a no smoking building, you can expect some consequences, usually to be kicked out, but a high smoke damage deposit is one possibility.
Anyone who longs for rent control is welcome to move back to California or New York City, where, hey, surprise, rents in the rent control cities are massively higher than rent anywhere in Idaho.
Umm the salaries are way higher too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
