They don't give a damn, but every time I've asked for changes to contracts, including positions I was actively recruited for by the hiring manager, once even by the owner of the company, I'm told to sign it or no job. In the case of the owner asking me to apply, they literally said "My lawyer says to leave it in, you're not a lawyer, it's staying in."
I'm sure some people have negotiated these things but I've tried multiple times - to shorten noncompete lengths, to remove the "anything you do on our machine is ours for all time" stuff, etc - but never had any success.
"My lawyer says to leave it in, you're not a lawyer, it's staying in."
The response there is "Well you aren't a lawyer either, and mine said it needs to go".
As others here have said, crazy clauses can go. One key point, make it clear it is about unduly restricting right to income in the future, without wanting to screw over anyone.
This is why a second response, such as "Well, if you triple the salary ... maybe" makes a point here.
Some contracts literally make it impossible for you to work in the future, in your field. That means 'gimme retirement salary on exit' minimum.
(Such broad clauses are rarely enforceable, you can't prevent a person from working at all, but... )
They will 100% let you walk over this. And then what? Your next offer will be the same, and so on. Market forces don't work if every agent on one side of the market does exactly the same thing.
I'm sure some people have negotiated these things but I've tried multiple times - to shorten noncompete lengths, to remove the "anything you do on our machine is ours for all time" stuff, etc - but never had any success.