I can think of a bunch of reasons why one might end up in such a situation, all of which point to systemic failures to protect the free movement of people: 1)

I can think of a bunch of reasons why one might end up in such a situation, all of which point to systemic failures to protect the free movement of people: 1) Unfamiliarity with the law. People moving from states which protect the marketplace for employment from non-compete abuse (e.g. California) may not realize that such "agreements" even exist. I didn't, and was pretty surprised by them when I left CA after 7 years in SV. 2) Being required to sign a non-compete _after_ you've already begun the job, which is (AFAIK) legal many places, though I don't know about Idaho. 3) Asymmetric power in the "agreement", especially when larger employers (with legal departments) are involved. The scare quotes are there because the parties agreeing to the contract are not negotiating from comparable positions of strength, so I think the word "agreement" is a post-truth-type word. IMO, a free market won't remain free without public policy support. I guess Idaho prefers a different sort of arrangement. That's their choice. Welcome to my personal blacklist, Idaho.