I think the argument is that the current reward to an early employee is a joke compared to the risk their taking, given the other job options available to them.
So its not that the founder shouldn't be rewarded fairly for their risk, but that early employees are not. Thus the answer to this thread is just that being an EE isn't worth it.
I think that makes sense, an EE should end up making more money then a non EE for the same effort/time. Otherwise, why would you risk ending up making less in case the startup fails?
So say a startup has 10% chance of success. On failure, the EE loses 200K compared to non EE jobs. That's a 9 in 10 chance of making 200k less, so maybe the 1 in 10 chance should give at least a 9 time payout, where the EE would end up making 1800k in case startup succeeds.
Otherwise, you'd be crazy to accept an EE job, unless you just can't find any other non EE work.
That said, I think its obvious for a tech worker currently that unless you're located somewhere which only has startup jobs, and you don't want to relocate, then you're better of going with an established business with more guaranteed pay and equity.
And who's guaranteeing all these fallback jobs? Other founders just hire failed entrepreneurs so they can stick together? That's a great way to lose money. You must be reading about the 0.01% of founders who get all the attention and the fluffy feel-good startup posts because this is definitely not how it works.
And yes, more risk deserves more reward, why is that even controversial?