The way I look at a job is you get paid three ways.

1. Money.

2. Skills and Knowledge.

3. Career Contacts.

With non-competes a company is trying to screw you out of #2 and 3.

As a counterpoint, it allows companies to give you a higher salary in exchange for #2 and 3. Or alternatively, if non-competes are the norm, it would allow a business to provide lower salaries for the incentive of no non-compete clause.

The argument whether to ban non-competes should be rooted in the practical applications of the clause. Highly skilled, in-demand workers have the power and financial safety to negotiate a non-compete clause.

The question is when the power dynamic between employer and employee is heavily skewed yowards the employer, can they abuse this imbalance to force non-competes as a market equilibrium.

For example, for a person struggling financially, the slightly higher salary may be a short-term requirement, while the non-compete ruins their long-term prospects.

The issue is, as you mentioned, the employer does have an unfair negotiating advantage. Most employees don't have the luxury of paying lawyers (or the knowledge that this is something they should do) to look at every non-compete offer and explain the contract. Having just gone through the process, lawyers are very expensive and time consuming. Talking to people about it reveals that most people don't really understand the issue either, believing wrongly that non-competes are not enforceable. Many companies also try to hide non-competes until after you have accepted the job offer. Companies in contrast have a much easier time hiring a lawyer, as they can offer a standard non-compete to each of their potential hires. So this is an area where it makes sense for the government to step in and protect workers.

iff it's a higher salary in exchange for #2 and 3

i suspect the employer / (healthcareinsurer if in US) imbalance is really the core issue.

In medical research ethics, informed consent acknowledges the imbalance. I think e.g. CA unenforcement of non-compete does a similar job.

(I am also a worker bee and benefit from non-enforcement, so take my input for the electrons they're based on.)

I'd be ok with #2 and #3 if the company would continue to pay the employee for the full duration of the non-compete.

Or the non-compete allows them to keep your salary lower because you have fewer options of places to work.

That is the right answer.

If you think non-compete agreements 'screw you out of #2 and 3", but still want the job (probably) because it is your best chance to get #1, it seems that you are being paid 1 in exchange for 2 and 3. The non-compete ban simply blinds you to the opportunity of selling 2 and 3.

That is how it should work in theory, but not how it works in practice. In practice companies can use their better understanding of the true value/cost of non-competes to exploit workers. If there exists a large pool of workers who are willing to sign non-competes because they are not well informed about them, than in order to get a job you will have to sign a non-compete (or move to CA).

If a particular situation like non-competes is a net negative for society as a whole I don't see why we should bother to allow them.