I think you're still giving too much away: you're saying that a past employer has the right to block you from other employment opportunities (so long as they pay some predetermined amount).

Instead, how about get rid of noncompetes entirely. If someone doesn't want you to go to be employed by a competitor of theirs, they'll have to make you a deal (employment, or other contract) that you'll accept at that time. No past noncompete clause in an imbalanced power dynamic required.

(Side note: This would also be incentive for companies to go back to inspiring loyalty, by example. And not hiring mercenaries who will hop at the next better deal.)

Nah, it should be the higher of current pay or potential pay so that i can offer jobs at ridiculous salaries to my competitor's workers and stick my competitor with huge bills if they choose not to waive the non compete. Weaponize this the other way to end the utter stupidity

This. Companies typically get these non-compete and non-solicit clauses in place when you accept RSUs or other equity award. In some cases they don’t even vest for a few years or could be worth only a few thousand dollars. It’s hard for me to get my head around the fact that nearly no meaningful consideration is actually given to employees when in fact the potential down side of loss of income is so huge when you are prohibited from working in your field for a year or more. The deal is absurd and should be prohibited.

If there is a real threat of damage to a company’s competitive position then the company should pay you to stay on the sidelines, instead companies are stifling individuals ability to grow and earn an income.

Plus bonus compensation for the loss of skills while you aren't working.