No, I'm actually okay with non-competes. But they should be illegal if they don't come with >100% total comp garden pay for the term of the non-compete. Also,

No, I'm actually okay with non-competes. But they should be illegal if they don't come with >100% total comp garden pay for the term of the non-compete. Also, attempting to enforce a blatantly unenforcable non-compete should result in criminal charges for whoever made the decision to push enforcement, disbarment for their legal team, and substantial civil liability. The bar for that should be very high, but the choice to enforce a non-compete should be one that's only made when the legal team is damn sure there's a compelling argument that the non-compete is legally enforceable. Too many people are handcuffed by definitely-garbage non-competes because they can't afford the legal fight. With >100% garden pay terms, I would personally prefer limited/short term non-competes over infinite/long term NDAs, for example. I've explicitly made that choice in the past.