> "About one in five American workers—approximately 30 million people—are bound by a non-compete clause and are thus restricted from pursuing better employment opportunities. A non-compete clause is a contractual term between an employer and a worker that blocks the worker from working for a competing employer, or starting a competing business, typically within a certain geographic area and period of time after the worker’s employment ends. Because non-compete clauses prevent workers from leaving jobs and decrease competition for workers, they lower wages for both workers who are subject to them as well as workers who are not. Non-compete clauses also prevent new businesses from forming, stifling entrepreneurship, and prevent novel innovation which would otherwise occur when workers are able to broadly share their ideas. The Federal Trade Commission proposes preventing employers from entering into non-compete clauses with workers and requiring employers to rescind existing non-compete clauses. The Commission estimates that the proposed rule would increase American workers’ earnings between $250 billion and $296 billion per year. The Commission is asking for the public’s opinion on its proposal to declare that non-compete clauses are an unfair method of competition, and on the possible alternatives to this rule that the Commission has proposed. "
I use cash for so so so much. I will bring a couple of thousand USD on a trip and convert it to the local currency to avoid exactly this hassle. Not just for me but for the merchant as well.
Not really a solution, as there’s plenty of countries now (eg Australia, nz) where cash is not useful anymore, because many physical merchants no longer accept it. The number grows every year.
I honestly don't remember the last time I used wikipedia. As a member of a minority community. It doesn't have anything that I care about. My information resources are elsewhere.
I wouldn't be surprised if the number of admins was cut in half again in the next 10 years.
My experience with companies pulling DIY contract addendums out of their ass is that they forget severability clauses. Or that the contract starts falling apart because they have other sections which refer to the severed part which means those sections also fall apart. For example, a damages section that ends up exceeding state law.
DIY contracts are the best to sign because they are such a mess.
... or move to the State of California which has laws that make such contracts illegal. I remember one contract I signed which had an addendum that read:
"section blah blah does not apply to residents of the State of California."
So 49 other state residents are getting a bad deal but California residents are getting a better deal, yet the company is doing just fine. Hmmm Maybe that section isn't needed anywhere?
I write blog entries when I have to explain the same thing more than once. I just write the "email" as a blog entry and then just send a link to the blog post.
So I write blog posts as a way to reduce my effort.
From the FTC rule finding (1/2023): https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/federal-register-no...
> "About one in five American workers—approximately 30 million people—are bound by a non-compete clause and are thus restricted from pursuing better employment opportunities. A non-compete clause is a contractual term between an employer and a worker that blocks the worker from working for a competing employer, or starting a competing business, typically within a certain geographic area and period of time after the worker’s employment ends. Because non-compete clauses prevent workers from leaving jobs and decrease competition for workers, they lower wages for both workers who are subject to them as well as workers who are not. Non-compete clauses also prevent new businesses from forming, stifling entrepreneurship, and prevent novel innovation which would otherwise occur when workers are able to broadly share their ideas. The Federal Trade Commission proposes preventing employers from entering into non-compete clauses with workers and requiring employers to rescind existing non-compete clauses. The Commission estimates that the proposed rule would increase American workers’ earnings between $250 billion and $296 billion per year. The Commission is asking for the public’s opinion on its proposal to declare that non-compete clauses are an unfair method of competition, and on the possible alternatives to this rule that the Commission has proposed. "