[Wowfunhappy]

You're expected to do your best at your next job—but because it's not the most appropriate job for you, you're actual performance is probably some percentage less than what it could be elsewhere. This can in turn be an opportunity to diversify your overall skillset.

(I was of course being a bit facetious with the 40% metric—real life isn't quite so simple—but saying the noncompete should have 100% compensation is silly. That would only make sense if your ability to work was being completely taken away)

[SoylentYellow]

How is 100% compensation silly? Non-compete agreements restrict your ability to freely practice your craft. They are prone to being improperly applied or outright abused (see Jimmy John's audacious non-compete clause). This has happened so often that California practically outlawed them. The root of the problem is that a boiler plate non-compete clause in every employee contract costs nothing. The company can pick and choose when to enforce it, so why not include it? Requiring 100% compensation forces companies to justify the non-compete with their pocket book. This is a powerful feedback mechanism that balances restricting a person's basic rights with legitimate business needs.

[code_beers]

Why exactly would I choose a company which will professionally handicap me for the rest of my career, locking 60% of my income potential at what it is now and leaving me to sort through how to have a career without getting sued? Ain’t gonna happen. Not going to sign the agreement. Like I said, it may sound mathematically right, but it’s absolutely absurd.