It also seems fair to relate the discussion of the appeal of a lack of share dilution mentioned earlier - If the view is that you're actually building this product with others then it can be assumed you're constantly contributing to the immediate and long term value - given that stance upward creeping granted value (as direct ownership or options to buy) is similarly logical, the proportional contribution you're making to a company will vary over the length of the company, initially the founder that's brought the actual business proposal to the table will be the main driver - but as you realize that proposal and put forth infrastructure (technical or best practices) the value being brought out of that proposal is shifting toward the engineering side - it's only late in the game once explosive growth has begun (maybe near the 50 employee mark?) that the power of your voice and the weight of your decisions will start appreciably shrinking... I think for the early growth period most additional employees are more further reducing the founder's share in the value created rather than other employees...
This is all intensely vague and general but it's an interesting line you started down with the balance of investment vs. employee contributions, risk and compensation.
This bit, however:
better liquidation preferences that favor employees at the same level as investors because employees _are_ investors if they are taking a pay cut
seems serious and fair to me, and perhaps something that startups could actually do to stand out. I don't know how doable that is vs. what barriers there might be to it, but I'll ask.