Founders and investors have favorable terms -- they can take money off the table in the former case, and have liquidation preferences in the latter. So their stock has non-zero value, though it may not be as much as the paper valuation suggests.

Great perspective. It's not that equity itself is zero value. Otherwise, how would founders be able to afford MacLarens? It's employee equity that should be thought of as very low (or zero) value.

In fairness, employees are encouraged to think of it as zero value specifically when considering it in lieu of alternative compensation.

Right. It's quite the opposite of GP's sarcastic remark: founders want their employees to value their equity highly so they don't have to pay them as much. The advice in this thread is contrary to this. But yes, I've seen founders be stingy with equity during negotiation using this type of "logic," so the GP's point still stands.

Those are three totally different things. The kinds of stock/options and decision making power for an employee, a founder, and an investor are completely different.

Because founders usually don't get fucked out of their stock. Employees regularly do.