When you're restricting people's freedom, you have to have a good justification for doing it. There are zero states that have achieved greater economic success than California by allowing noncompetes, thus it is safe to say that noncompetes are not necessary to achieve economic success.

The point being that strict non-competes do not actually bolster the business environment.

They bolster businesses by making it easier for them to retain employees even if those employees are being treated like shit, because it makes it illegal for those employees to work anywhere else.

That doesn't help the economy, but it helps the businesses.

There's no singular factor in almost everything. We should use good faith interpretation and assume the parent understands this as well, unless there is other evidence otherwise