The FTC is back to being the activist US agency progressives sought in 1914 | Robert Reich

Have you ever been forced to sign a non-compete agreement when you started a job?

This is a big deal. The FTC estimates that such a ban could increase wages by nearly $300bn a year (about $2,000 a worker, on average) by allowing workers to pursue better job opportunities.

A recent study found one in five workers without a college education subject to them, disproportionately women and people of color.

Employers say they need non-compete agreements to protect trade secrets and investments they put into growing their businesses, including training workers.

Rubbish. Employers in the states that already ban them (such as California) show no sign of being more reluctant to invest in their businesses or train workers.

The real purpose of non-competes is to make it harder (or impossible) for workers to bargain with rival employers for better pay or working conditions.

As we learn again and again, capitalism needs guardrails to survive. Unfettered greed leads to monopolies that charge high prices, suppress wages and corrupt politics.

America once understood the importance of fighting monopolies.

In 1976, when I ran the policy planning staff of the FTC, the agency again began cracking down on corporations under its aggressive chairman, Michael Pertschuk. (Pertschuk died just weeks ago.)

He (and I) left the agency when Ronald Reagan appointed a new chairman, who promptly defanged it.

Now, under its new Biden-appointed chair, Lina M Khan, the FTC is back to being the activist agency that progressives sought in 1914 and Pertschuk resurrected in 1976.