It is also interesting game-theory wise that we see countless towns and states trying to be 'the next Silicon Valley' but that is one thing that they never do that could put them in some degree of competition. Especially places with other assets such as having many prominent universities.
Businesses so successful that they have no need to do anything weird to their employees are super rare. And non-competes are one of those things that very weakly impact a bottom line. So some Darwinian process with cities and companies or whatever is never going to select for, "No noncompetes."
The bigger question is if you really believe that the "laboratories" / Darwinian process of cities and regulations and states and whatever idea in the first place. It's a conjecture by some credible, mainstream public intellectuals. The biggest evidence for it is cities/states accommodating tax avoidance, which so directly affects the bottom line that it's basically an apples-to-oranges comparison with anything less concrete like non-competes.
Why would it select for no non-competes when people are willing to sign them and a culture of legal "take anything you can get"-ism among employers pays off in other areas?
