I'm not sure the salary matters much in practice here. What we should avoid are scenarios that force folks out of their livelihood when they're subject to a non

I'm not sure the salary matters much in practice here. What we should avoid are scenarios that force folks out of their livelihood when they're subject to a non-compete through lawsuit or threat of one. I'd love to see them go the way of the Dodo, but failing that I'd at least like for some hard requirements on what forms non-competes may take so that they could be more equitable for employees: 1. Require non-competes compensate the employee for the salary they've been denied when enforced. If someone with key knowledge is a big enough issue to sue over and an organization hasn't done the work to retain said employee, the employee shouldn't have to bear the burden of extended unemployment for valuable skills or knowledge they may have. 2. Require non-competes have maximum durations. A non-compete for more than 6 - 12 months is likely excessive and can used to discourage job mobility. 3. Require non-competes be scoped to knowlege, know-how, or skills specific to that employee. Many non-competes I've seen say something along the lines of "you can't work for a competitor" without elaboration. If you work at a large organization or one with subsidiaries in multiple industries, "competitor" becomes a large swathe of potential industries you could feasibly work at. This also prevents one from working at a similar company in a completely different role. I get the desire to discourage job hopping, but that is rarely what these agreements are used to do in effect and there are better ways to take legal action in cases where proprietary info or know-how is stolen.