Not necessarily true in many small towns across rural USA. If the major holding companies, e.g. Yum! Brands, McDonald's, etc. have all of their brands doing non-competes there might be only 2 independent fast-food joints within a 45-minute drive and few other jobs available.

If that scenario ever played out, the workers would not be able to sign the agreement, so the employer would just have to concede. It would be far more costly to close down business (unless it was going to close anyway, in which case your comment is moot) than to take a stand and hire nobody.

Bedsides, if we want to pretend that in your made up scenario that the workers did somehow end up signing the agreements, the employers would quickly run out of people to hire. A small town – one too far away from anything else for others to come in to work – and where everyone has legally taken themselves out of the job market is not a good place to be in as an employer. While employers can benefit from non-competes under certain conditions, they are not universally beneficial.

You offer a fun thought experiment, but in reality a non-compete would not be offered here in the first place.

You're somehow speaking as if this isn't already happening, at least per the other comment.

Also, if you think McDonald's is going to change a corporate policy rather than operate a few stores below capacity or even close them down, you have a really skewed view of the relative power of low pay non-union workers...

McDonald’s doesn’t own those small-town locations. They are franchised, typically by locals. The employer of those low-wage workers is a completely different “corporate” – one that is in tune to the local realities.

The fake agenda pushing is funny and all, but why don’t we just stick to reality? There are real reasons why non-competes are a problem. What is gained from the "But won't someone please think of the (adult) children?" narrative?