I wouldn't mind non-competes if the companies were required to provide something in return, e.g. valuable job training. I'm guessing that's how they started, but now they're just an easy way to hold employees hostage, suppress wages, and reduce competition in the labor market.
We changed the title from "States Such as CA, Montana, North Dakota and Oklahoma, Ban Non-Compete Clauses". The site guidelines ask:
"Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
Cherry-picking a particular detail is editorializing. If you want to say what you think is important, you're welcome to do so, but it should be via a comment in the thread explaining why you posted it. Then your view is on a level playing field with everyone else's.
There is constant misinformation about non-compete agreements in CA, and the HN crowd show know about this, members of which might be involved in the sale of a business. If you sign a non-compete as part of an acquisition agreement, and you benefit financially from the sale, your non-compete is enforceable. CA courts have held to this, as in these cases the buyer is being deprived of the benefit of the acquisition.
Edit: the original title of this post was "States Such as CA, Montana, North Dakota and Oklahoma, Ban Non-Compete Clauses". As editorialized, the title was presenting misinformation.