There's probably something to the fact that it's biotech first, government contractor tech second and software startups third, though. Those employer-friendly and IP-friendly laws work a lot better for biotech's long product cycles and government contractors.. whatever it is about them.
The way that article, from a study conducted by a real estate company, defines brain drain is interesting though. Basically, Boston has a huge number of STEM students and a disproportionate number of them leave after they graduate for a variety of reasons.
However, in the context of the Bay area, consider the following paragraph:
"CBRE’s report notes that over the past five years, the cost of living in Boston has climbed by 118 percent. Even a software developer earning the average salary of $108,270 per year could grow tired of a rent well over $2,000 per month."
The article also cites people returning home and better city experience (bigger city/better climate ?)
Certainly not unimportant issues as is overall tech job growth. But brain drain usually means a net outflow of mature workers.
> The article also cites people returning home and better city experience (bigger city/better climate ?)
Boston is small, the public transportation system kind of sucks, and everything closes early. And trying to change those things raises a lot of neighborhood groups' hackles. The rents are high and a lot of the housing stock is old. All stuff that drives young people away, I'm guessing.
I do agree that banning non-competes would be good.