$1000/mo is nothing, it has to be tied to actual income, or some minimum clamp, which ever is higher.

Otherwise you get something like $4k/mo in the middle of Alabama, or $1k/mo in SF one of which is gratuitous, the latter is not enough to pay rent.

If you made it $10k/mo it would be more reasonable.

Just having a minimum and so a forced cost to NCs isn't enough, because you have to compare it to the cost savings it implies.

Take my $1k/mo in SF concept (noting that noncompetes are already not enforceable in CA). That isn't enough to pay rent, so it doesn't matter if you're guaranteed that income when you leave, because its not enough to live on. That means despite 1k obviously being more than 0, from a NC victim's PoV there isn't one - they cannot afford to quit, so their wages can still be easily suppressed.

Also don't base it on a fixed number as a minimum. It has to automatically track inflation.

A good start would be: the GREATER of the 75th percentile of wages for a given job category, and if multiple possible categories, the highest paying one that COULD apply OR the average take home pay over the last [3 years or during the time worked if shorter].

Yes, it's a minimum. Like with minimum wage, the exact number could be different (or raised over time) and many people could negotiate something higher. But even if too low, it would establish that noncompete agreements aren't free.