I really like the way Norway has done it. A couple of years back they introduced a law that to make non-competes enforceable the company would have to pay you a full salary for the duration that you're blocked out of other work. Non-competes has function, but it's far too cheap for the company and far too expensive for the employee. Now the employer has to consider whether it's a position it's worth to protect or not, rather than just put it in the default contract

50% is a huge paycut. Most people won't voluntarily accept that, so it's hardly an adequate protection.

For what it's worth, in states that do require compensation for non-competes, that compensation is typically about the same as the base salary, i.e. at or close to 100%.

But it is a heck of a lot of money if you want to get a job in another sector for a period of time.

Exactly. Setup a consultancy and go do stuff that's out of your non-compete zone.

Or just chill and take time off / spend with family. Maybe see the world?

It's a huge pay cut but you're not working. You have tons of time to do something else while collecting money. It's a very sweet deal.

>most people will happily accept significant salary for doing nothing.

Nonsense. Most people are not in a position to just take a 50% pay cut. Furthermore, taking a year or two off from a career can be very damaging when you look for a new job after the non-compete expires.

You can do something else. Usually non-competes are very specific. I don't know anyone who wouldn't take 50% of salary for day 2 years in exchange to have all this free time to do other things. It's not like you can't get another job.