Non-competes do have value to employers. But if they really don't have value to employees or society, what exactly is he supposed to argue with? There's no way to prove the non-existence of something.

He could prove they're detrimental in some way, but that's different than proving that they have no positive aspect for those groups.

It sounds to me like he has already stopped and pondered it, and came away with nothing. Then he posted here, offering people a chance to correct his ignorance.

So far as I can tell, he's done everything correctly.