> But the history of these covenants suggests that there’s a strong economic case for banning them entirely This is an example of starting to make a good point and carrying to an extreme that makes it unreasonable. Non-competes exist for a reason, and saying they need to be deleted is a silly argument. "This common business practice could use modification" generates less clicks, I suppose.
What, to your mind, are good reasons for non-competes? To me it just looks like rent-seeking. Do you see any negative consequences in states that have banned them almost entirely, such as California?
In some cases an employee might be able to build up a base of loyal customers more easily with a larger firm than they could alone, leave and take much of that business with them, and enjoy the continued productivity with much higher margins. The resources of the larger firm then become a stepping stone to the loss of their own business.
I know of one case (in which I am actually mostly sympathetic to the individual bound by the non-compete) in which that's actually exactly what happened.