Text l Americans,we are told,believe in competition.But a shockingly large number of workers-30 million-are shackled by what are called"noncompetes,"which are agreements forbidding employees to leave their job to work for a competitor or to start their ow

Text l Americans,we are told,believe in competition.But a shockingly large number of workers-30 million-are shackled by what are called"noncompetes,"which are agreements forbidding employees to leave their job to work for a competitor or to start their own competing business.And the number is growing fast.Once reserved for a corporation's most treasured rainmakers,noncompetes are now routinely applied to low-wage workers like warehouse employees,fast-food workers and even dog sitters.Like other anti-competitive practices,they poison our economy in larger,less perceptible ways.A report from the Treasury Department suggests that noncompetes should be banned for all employees,regardless of skill,industry or wage;they simply do more harm than good.Because laws governing noncompetes vary from state to state,we can analyze the effects of these kinds of contracts on wages,competition and labor mobility.The evidence shows wages in states that enforce noncompetes are 10 percent lower than in states that restrict their use.The Treasury Department concluded in its recent report that"by reducing workers'job options,noncompete agreements force workers to accept lower wages in their current jobs,and may sometimes induce workers to leave their occupations entirely,forgoing accumulated human capital."Workers shackled by noncompetes cannot rely on outside offers and free-market competition to fairly value their talents.Without incentives to increase wages in-house,companies can allow salaries to plateau.California and Massachusetts offer a case study within the high-tech industry.California strictly voids all noncompete agreements.Massachusetts,like most other states,enforces noncompetes.Both states enjoyed an early boom within the high-tech market,but California's Silicon Valley has continued growing,while Massachusetts has sputtered.In Massachusetts the enforcement of those agreements kept out new businesses by preventing people most likely to start new businesses-experienced former employees-from staying in the region.Meanwhile,in Silicon Valley,entrepreneurial activity flourished;thanks to California's refusal to enforce all noncompetes（including those from other jurisdictions）,it remains the tech center of the world.The best companies already realize the damaging effect of post-employment restrictions.Companies with little turnover risk becoming stagnant and short-sighted.In fact,relying on noncompetes rather than active recruitment and retention creates a market for lemons-a business will end up with employees who stay despite their unhappiness.Smart leaders treat departing employees as alumni,rather than sour exes in a divorce.But too many other employers have become increasingly inclined to bring disagreements with their former employees to court,relying on noncompetes rather than positive incentives to retain the best talent and reduce the competition.The liberty to move in the job market not only supports workers'choice,equality and wage growth but also creates the competition that catalyzes entrepreneurship,innovation and overall economic growth.If we want a healthy and free market,we should not shackle workers to the first business that offers them a job.Let them compete.
The word"shackled"（Line 2,Para.1）is closest in meaning to____.

A.authorized
B.united
C.guided
D.bound