I had the same question. As best as I can figure it out, it's "cost to worker" not overall cost. I -assume- it's based on the perception that employer pays fo

I had the same question. As best as I can figure it out, it's "cost to worker" not overall cost. I -assume- it's based on the perception that employer pays for Healthcare, so from a worker perspective it's "free". You leave the job, but the non-comptete means you're unemployable, hence pay your own Healthcare, or insurance. It presumes a fair bit. Firstly that non-competes mean "you can't work at all". It's also unclear if the calculation assumes you get your own insurance while unemployed or not. Personally I'm against non-competes (and I say that as an employer that's had employees leave and open something in direct competition to us, AND take customers with them.) IMO they're outside my personal ethical boundaries. So I like the rule.