Dumb Political Question: How the Heck Did We End Up...  🔗 **Source:** [Dumb Political Question: How the Heck Did We End Up...](https://twitter.com/photomatt/status/2104672233499300245/?rw_tt_thread=True) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [non-compete-agreements, employment-law, labor-mobility, state-policy, tech-workforce] > author: Matt Mullenweg > source: X (Twitter), @photomatt > reference: https://twitter.com/photomatt/status/2104672233499300245 > date created: 2026-10-04 > > > [!info] Generated analysis — not the author's words. Sections below are machine-written > > from the captured source. Only text inside `> [!quote]` blocks is verbatim from the author. > > Do not quote or attribute any other line to the named author. > <!-- deep-read:sections start --> ## 🏷️ Title **"Dumb political question: How the heck did we end up in a world where @California axed non-competes in 2023…"** — Matt Mullenweg, post on X, September 28, 2026. 41 words. A rhetorical question contrasting California's ban on non-compete agreements with Texas, which still enforces them. **What it's doing.** It's a policy jab framed as a question. The irony lands on Texas's self-image ("my home state of Liberty and Freedom") versus a legal rule that restricts workers' freedom to change jobs. Mullenweg grew up in Houston, which is the "home state" reference. **Why it's in this vault.** Non-competes shape talent movement across the WordPress hosting and agency market, where people move between competitors often. The legal facts below are background, not legal advice. ## 🧭 Table of Contents 1. [References (in-page)](#-references-in-page) 2. [Summary](#-summary) 3. [Main Content](#-main-content) → [Notes](#️-notes) 4. [References](#-references) 5. [Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) 6. [Newsletter](#-newsletter) 7. [Action Items](#-action-items) 8. [Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) 9. [Methodology](#-methodology) 10. [Questions](#-questions) 11. [Future Research](#-future-research) 12. [Implications](#-implications) 13. [Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) 14. [Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) 15. [DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) 16. [Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) 17. [DARVO Analysis](#️-darvo-analysis) 18. [Conclusion](#-conclusion) 19. [Refactor Appendix](#-refactor-appendix) ## 🔗 References (in-page) The markup was enumerated before any sourcing claim was made. Two links, both X account mentions: - `twitter.com/california` — @California (the state's account) - `twitter.com/texas` — @Texas No outbound links. The "2023" date and "§16600 in the 1872 Civil Code" are stated without citation. Both are accurate (see below). ## 📝 Summary - **What happened.** Mullenweg asks why California, often caricatured as anti-freedom by Texas politicians, bans non-competes while Texas, which brands itself on liberty, still allows them. - **Why it matters.** Non-competes restrict worker mobility; California's long ban is often credited with Silicon Valley's job-hopping culture. Texas is now a major tech hub (Austin, Dallas, Houston). - **Key stakeholders.** Tech workers in Texas; employers using non-competes; state legislators; companies like Automattic with remote employees in both states. - **Risks and tradeoffs.** Employers argue non-competes protect trade secrets and training investment; critics argue NDAs and trade-secret law already do that and non-competes suppress wages. - **Bottom line.** A short, accurate jab at a policy inconsistency, with the legal history right. ## 📖 Main Content **California.** Business and Professions Code §16600 voids "every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business." It descends from Civil Code §1673 (1872) — the "1872 Civil Code" Mullenweg mentions. In 2023, California passed **SB 699** and **AB 1076** (effective January 1, 2024): SB 699 made non-competes unenforceable in California regardless of where they were signed; AB 1076 required employers to notify current and former employees that existing non-compete clauses are void. That's the "axed non-competes in 2023" — strictly, it strengthened a ban already in place for 150 years. **Texas.** Texas Business and Commerce Code §15.50 permits non-competes if they're "ancillary to or part of an otherwise enforceable agreement" and reasonable in time, geography, and scope of activity. Texas narrowed them for physicians and some health-care workers in 2025 (SB 1318, effective September 1, 2025), but they remain broadly enforceable. **Federal.** The FTC's 2024 rule banning most non-competes was set aside nationwide by a federal court in Texas (*Ryan LLC v. FTC*, N.D. Tex., August 2024). The FTC later moved away from defending the rule. As a result, state law governs. **The irony.** "My home state of Liberty and Freedom @Texas" — the capitalized slogans mock Texas's political branding. The implied argument: freedom of contract (the pro-non-compete position) and freedom to work (the anti-non-compete position) both claim the "freedom" label, and California picked the worker's version. **Terms.** - **Non-compete agreement** — a contract clause barring an employee from working for a competitor, or starting one, for a period after leaving. - **Ancillary** — in Texas law, the non-compete must be tied to another enforceable promise (e.g., access to confidential information). ## 🗒️ Notes - "Dumb political question" — self-deprecating framing; it's not dumb, it's rhetorical. - "How the heck did we end up in a world where…" — the question isn't seeking an answer; it's pointing at an inconsistency. - "axed non-competes in 2023" — accurate as shorthand for SB 699/AB 1076; the parenthetical correctly notes the deeper history. - "(further if you count §16600 in the 1872 Civil Code)" — a precise legal citation, unusual for an X post; signals Mullenweg has looked into it. - "my home state of Liberty and Freedom" — sarcasm via capitalization. - No position on the FTC rule, no mention of Texas's 2025 health-care carve-out. - The post doesn't say why Mullenweg is asking now. The source gives no context. ## 📚 References - Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §16600 — https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=16600 - California SB 699 (2023) — https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB699 - California AB 1076 (2023) — https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1076 - Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §15.50 — https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/BC/htm/BC.15.htm - Texas SB 1318 (2025), health-care non-competes — https://capitol.texas.gov/ - FTC Non-Compete Clause Rule and *Ryan LLC v. FTC* — https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules/noncompete-rule - Ronald Gilson, "The Legal Infrastructure of High Technology Industrial Districts," *NYU Law Review* 74 (1999) — the classic argument linking §16600 to Silicon Valley's mobility ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - Possibly a dumb question: how did California — which wiped out non-competes in 2023, and really back in 1872 — end up more pro-worker-freedom on this than Texas, Mullenweg's home state that brands itself on liberty and freedom and still lets employers enforce non-competes? ## 📰 Newsletter **Liberty, Freedom, and your non-compete** Matt Mullenweg asked a "dumb political question" on X this week: how is it that California bans non-competes and Texas — "my home state of Liberty and Freedom" — still enforces them? It's not dumb. California's ban goes back to 1872 and got stronger in 2023 (SB 699 voids non-competes no matter where they were signed). Texas enforces them if they're "reasonable" and tied to another agreement. The FTC's 2024 national ban was struck down — in a Texas court. Why WordPress folks should care: our ecosystem runs on people moving between hosts, agencies, and product companies. If you're hiring or being hired across state lines, read your offer letter's restrictive-covenant section before you sign, and know which state's law your contract picks. ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Not applicable as a primary audience. #### OSPO - **Policy & Governance:** review contributor and employee agreements for non-compete clauses that could restrict open-source contributors from working with other companies in the ecosystem. #### Community - **Contributors:** sponsored contributors moving between companies benefit from knowing their contract terms; a community FAQ on "what your employer contract can and can't restrict" would help. #### WordPress - **Core:** Not applicable. - **Core Performance:** Not applicable. - **Core AI:** Not applicable. - **Core Program Team:** Not applicable. - **Mobile:** Not applicable. - **Playground:** Not applicable. - **Community:** Not applicable. - **Training:** Not applicable. - **Marketing:** Not applicable. - **Support:** Not applicable. - **Design:** Not applicable. - **Documentation:** Not applicable. - **Photos:** Not applicable. - **TV:** Not applicable. - **Polyglots:** Not applicable. - **Accessibility:** Not applicable. - **Meta:** Not applicable. - **CLI:** Not applicable. - **Hosting:** hosting companies are frequent users of restrictive covenants; worth knowing state law when hiring across states. - **Tide:** Not applicable. - **Openverse:** Not applicable. - **Themes:** Not applicable. - **Plugins:** Not applicable. #### The WPOCC - **Programs:** fellowship and stipend agreements should avoid non-compete language so contributors can move freely. #### FAIR - Not applicable to this source. ## 🧪 Hypotheses 1. **H1.** Tech-worker job mobility (employer changes per worker-year) is higher in California than Texas, controlling for industry mix. 2. **H2.** Wages for comparable software roles rose faster in states that banned non-competes after 2015 than in states that didn't. 3. **H3.** After SB 699, Texas-based tech employers with California employees reduced use of non-compete clauses in offer letters. 4. **H4.** Texas legislators will extend non-compete limits beyond health care within two sessions. ## 📊 Methodology - **H1/H2:** LEHD job-to-job flow data (Census J2J) and BLS OEWS wage data by state and occupation; difference-in-differences around state law changes (e.g., Oregon 2008, Hawaii 2015 tech-worker ban). - **H3:** Survey of offer letters via a sample of Texas tech employers, before and after 2024. - **H4:** Track bills in the Texas Legislature Online database. ## ❓ Questions - Why is Mullenweg asking now — any connection to a hiring or litigation context? - Does Automattic use non-competes for Texas employees? - How do SB 699's out-of-state provisions interact with Texas choice-of-law clauses in court? - Will Texas's 2025 health-care carve-out expand to other fields? ## 🔮 Future Research - Post-*Ryan v. FTC* state-level non-compete changes, 2024–2026. - Effect of remote work on which state's non-compete law applies. ## 💡 Implications - **Practice.** Workers in Texas should read restrictive-covenant clauses closely; California workers generally can't be bound. - **Policy.** The state patchwork persists absent federal action. - **Security.** Not applicable. - **Education.** Not applicable. - **Funding.** Not applicable. ## 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment - **Reading level estimate:** Flesch-Kincaid Grade ≈ 14 (one long sentence); content is simple. #### 👀 Visual learners - **Present:** none. - **Improve:** a map of state non-compete rules. #### 🔊 Aural learners - **Present:** none. - **Improve:** Not applicable. #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - **Present:** irony via capitalization. - **Improve:** Not applicable. #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - **Present:** none. - **Improve:** a checklist for reading an offer letter's restrictive covenants. #### 🧠 Logical learners - **Present:** a precise statutory citation (§16600). - **Improve:** the Texas statute citation for symmetry. #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - **Present:** an open question invites replies. - **Improve:** Not applicable. #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - **Present:** Not applicable. - **Improve:** Not applicable. #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - **Present:** none. - **Improve:** Not applicable to this source. ## 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - **Present:** plain text; "§16600" reads as "section 16600" in most screen readers. - **Improve:** Not applicable. #### Keyboard navigation - **Present:** platform-dependent. - **Improve:** Not applicable. #### Contrast and readability - **Present:** platform default. - **Improve:** Not applicable. #### Text resizing and reflow - **Present:** platform reflow. - **Improve:** Not applicable. #### Media and captions - **Present:** none. - **Improve:** Not applicable. #### Forms and interactions - **Present:** none. - **Improve:** Not applicable. #### Standards reference - No WCAG 2.2 AA issues in the post's own content. ## 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - **Present:** US state politics only. - **Improve:** Not applicable. #### Inclusive language - **Present:** neutral. - **Improve:** Not applicable. #### Neurodiversity support - **Present:** one sentence; sarcasm conveyed by capitalization. - **Improve:** Not applicable. #### Representation - **Present:** Not applicable. - **Improve:** Not applicable. #### Psychological safety - **Present:** self-deprecating framing ("Dumb political question") lowers the stakes. - **Improve:** Not applicable. ## ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - **Accurate legal history.** Both the 2023 date and the 1872 origin are correct. - **Irony as argument.** Pointing out that a "freedom" brand coexists with restrictions on worker freedom is a legitimate rhetorical move, provided the reader shares the premise that job mobility is a freedom. #### Fallacies - **Equivocation (latent)** — #fallacy/equivocation. Location: "Liberty and Freedom." Weakness: Texas's position rests on freedom of contract; Mullenweg's irony assumes freedom of labor. Both are "freedom." Fix: name which freedom is at stake. #### Tone of voice - Wry, self-deprecating, mildly sarcastic. ## 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - **Deny.** Not present. - **Attack.** Not present. - **Reverse victim/offender.** Not present. - **Overall.** Not applicable to this source. ## 🎯 Conclusion - **Bottom line.** An accurate, ironic note that California bans non-competes (since 1872, strengthened in 2023) while Texas, despite its liberty branding, enforces them. - **Next steps.** If you work in or hire from Texas, read restrictive-covenant clauses and check which state's law the contract chooses. ## 🔄 Refactor Appendix — Dumb political question: How the heck did we end up... ### 📚 Literature Atoms #### [H1] California bans non-competes while Texas enforces them > [!quote] ID:rw_01m3nnhfwejex6asv2hrfmh806 > @California axed non-competes in 2023 (further if you count §16600 in the 1872 Civil Code), but my home state of Liberty and Freedom @Texas still allows them **Context & use**: - The whole post. - The core contrast; accurate legal history. **Tags**: #xref #share **Highlight**: inline (Phase 2) <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> ### 🧠 Permanent Candidates #### [P1] freedom-of-contract-and-freedom-to-work-compete-for-the-same-word **Claim** (one sentence, Courtney's voice): Non-compete debates are fights over which freedom counts — the employer's to contract or the worker's to leave. **Evidence pointer**: [[#H1]] **Scope & conditions**: Holds wherever "freedom" branding is used on both sides of a labor policy; less useful where non-competes are narrowly limited to sale-of-business cases. **Links**: - [[I have offered to work with a few really rich...]] — because contrasts on who owns a person's time and work <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> ### ✏️ Fleeting Queue - [F1] Check the status of the FTC non-compete rule after Ryan LLC v. FTC — ftc.gov #fleeting #inbox ### → Things 3 - [ ] Note Texas §15.50 vs. California §16600 in the hiring-contracts reference — Mullenweg non-compete post #things <!-- deep-read:sections end --> 📄 **Full text:** [[Full Document Contents/Tweets/Dumb Political Question How the Heck Did We End Up....md|Dumb Political Question: How the Heck Did We End Up... by Matt Mullenweg]] ## Highlights - Dumb political question: How the heck did we end up in a world where @California axed non-competes in 2023 (further if you count §16600 in the 1872 Civil Code), but my home state of Liberty and Freedom @Texas still allows them? ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01m43fshs4chfpqhw7rc34mbhj)) - Note: [H1] California bans non-competes while Texas enforces them - Tags: atom/literature/h1