Secondly, while there do exist well-compensated noncompetes for executives and other high-value employees -- and I don't think anyone here is arguing against those either -- the vast majority are not compensated at all, except that the employee gets the job in the first place.
Still, there is a little truth in what you say. But we in California think that that is a price very much worth paying in exchange for the more vibrant economy afforded by outlawing noncompetes.
- Are fairly new to the industry or are otherwise trying to act in a buyer's market for labor,
- Are being offered market-rate or lower with no extra incentives, and
- Have a potential employer trying to foist a noncompete on them for no particular business reason.
Understand the employer's business model and whether noncompete will be a sticking point for them. If it is, then the situation is very different, and you should be asking for lots of money rather than the clause's removal.
If they're not paying you while you're not allowed to work in your field, yes, they are. And unfortunately that's a lot of them. If you're being paid to sit in your backyard or do something in a another field, that's a different story.
Non competes aren't intrinsically shady or evil. Some companies have business models that depend very heavily on secret IP. It's just another adverse factor you have to add into the mix when evaluating a job, along with compensation, work-life balance, advancement opportunities, etc. Many non-competes are very well compensated, and limited in scope to a particular niche industry, so you could still go off and work anywhere else in tech industry where your IP cannot be used against your old employer. Signing one isn't the worst thing in the world.