It sounds like it would be beneficial to list out each of the non-monetary advantages and disadvantages of a job and how much money they're each worth, but in reality there's too many [1] to make that practical. Not only are there a ton of these unseen effects but their value is different for each individual.
One person may value their ability to take another job at a competitor quite highly while another may not. And that's the case for all these unseen effects.
[1] Examples of unseen effects that make the implicit wage different from the explicit one:
* having to sign a noncompete
* do you like the sorts of people you'll be working with?
* do you like the tasks you'll be working on?
* do you have flexible hours?
* do you like the place where you work?
* do you like the length of the commute to work?
* do you like the smell of the rhododendron's outside your office window?
etc.
An ordinary person would rightly believe that 100% of their job compensation is in exchange for doing their job, and that any additional bonus compensation for doing something else must be explicitly laid out in a separate contract.
In order for what you say to be true, jobs with non-compete agreements should in aggregate pay more than jobs without them. I do not have that data, but I believe that they actually pay less, due to the tautological competition-suppressing effect of non-competes.