(Your criticism still partially stands; it's common for founders to over-value the equity they offer employees. Way past the last funding round, for example. It's invariably a short-sighted decision. Used wisely, equity can be a great motivator.)
I somewhat disagree. Valuing startup equity at $0 doesn't mean that other aspects of startup environment (or the environment of particular startups) -- such as the working environment, and kind of problems you get to work on -- can't be valued sufficiently to make the non-equity portion of compensation sufficient.
Nothing wrong in wanting certainty. But certainty on the downside matches certainty on the upside. If you don't care about the upside then why would you join a startup?
For some people, money is what allows them to take a job they desire for other reasons (since, you know, you have to pay for necessities somehow), without financial considerations being the sole motivation for choosing one place of work over another.
There are plenty of companies that have IPO'd that offer stock as compensation, by the way. I've worked for a few. That stock directly translates into cash once it vests. (Well, assuming the stock price goes up -- but at least cashing out is an option!)
You also seem to be asserting that I'm rejecting equity completely. As I've said in my parent comments, I'm certainly not. I'm simply placing a premium on salary (cash) over stock options (not likely to become cash). Of course I want equity. I don't not want it. But it doesn't replace salary, and I can't pay my rent with options.
Yes I'm aware of things like restricted stock units. But you shouldn't really think of them as the same thing as private startup stock. Just like small-cap stocks need different strategies from large-cap, or stocks from bonds. You don't want to assess one category by the standards of another.
Salary and stock are separate categories, sure, but choosing an employer is nothing but an exercise in comparing apples and oranges anyway. You have to decide how much liquid cash you need for rent or a down-payment on a house. Once you account for such scenarios the rest is just an investment riding into the future one way or another. Past that point things get fungible.
It sounds like the bad experience you had may not have had enough cash to cover liquidity needs. The founder should have just expressed regret that they can't afford the salary a larger place can. It's another common mistake startups make: assuming (in the course of a hard sell) that there is one rational choice for everyone regardless of their circumstances.
Yes, more often than not its been worth "nothing" (negative if you took a lower salary to get it), but when it's worth something, it's worth something...