This wouldn't be realistic even if non-competes were perfectly enforceable at low cost. An enforceable non-compete does not raise an employee's value to the employer, and anyways they would not be able to afford exorbitant salaries. Non-competes really do cost employees (who mostly act as though they are enforceable), and they seem to put up with it, and since they put up with this then in a sense it is already the case that the cost of non-competes is priced into labor costs. Now, yes, the fact that employees are accepting such low compensation for non-competes is a cultural mistake, but it can't be fixed easily, and your suggestion that they negotiate better isn't going to fix it.
Non-competes are so vague that nobody knows how much to demand even if they were possible to negotiate (which they aren't).
A friend of mine received two offers for almost the exact same compensation. One had a non-compete clause buried deep in the employment contract. Most candidates probably wouldn't even find it.
He asked what the non-compete means. They told him it's almost never enforced. As in, by the mere language, they could sue pretty much any employee who switched jobs.
So ask an independent lawyer to get an answer, right?
The lawyer told him it basically depends on the judge and the judicial climate if it ever goes to trial. Sometimes these cases get dismissed. Other times, the NCA is enforced.
Even if he wanted to negotiate, he couldn't. He doesn't know how much the clause is going to cost him. All the key information is missing, such as whether the company will actually sue, whether the "judicial climate" is right for the judge to side with the plaintiff or summarily dismiss the suit, etc.
It's the perfect example of "negotiations" being useless, especially for a weak uninformed party like a job candidate.
