Well, I guess all I mean to highlight is that a blanket ban might be sub-optimal versus requiring some minimum bar of fairness and consideration of noncompetes. After all, if the situation outlined above seems fair to us, then I feel like we'd have to concede that it would also be fair for the "average worker" if only such workers got similar terms (not necessarily millions of dollars, but commensurate with their normal pay) and had some negotiating leverage going into the agreement.

There is already plenty of precedent for overly lopsided/one-sided contracts not being valid/enforceable (and indeed many noncompetes actually aren't valid for exactly that reason), so I would have no problem with a law that makes the standard explicit, rather than relying on litigation and jurisdictionally variable case law to sort it out as happens today. Compared to a blanket ban, requiring employers to pony up some "fair" cost and to weigh that against the benefits to them of a noncompete may actually be better for workers overall.