A lot of startups aren't even technically very advanced so the only thing you may have learned is to work 80 hours per week without complaining

Disagree - not saying that a failed startup is better than Google, but honestly there is a lot of appeal to hiring someone who took a shot on something less established. Both have their merits.

i've had the opportunity to hire a decent number of people at a couple of startups. i hope you can find comfort in the fact i disagree with you. :)

That experience is invaluable to anyone who can adapt and apply the learned mistakes to future work. Especially so if being applied to a startup environment. You have to be laser focused, gritty, willing fight 24/7/365 for years. This doesn't just apply to the founder/CEO it applies to anyone involved early stage, every day is just too mission critical and the entire team needs to be aware of the consequences. For the most part or most teams, you don't learn that at Google. That's who i'd want on my team at least.

I've worked at a few startups, and with many more - and most of them did not require 150%. The two most successful were unicorns (networking, back in the day), and there we were barely past 100%. We worked mostly 9 to 5. Sometimes there was a push.

The extra bit past 100% is what you get equity for.

Moreover - it's definitely a choice on the part of the employee.

Software developers are generally in high demand, wages are high, and there's no reason to go '150%' unless you feel the 'total package' is right for you.

If service workers were required to put in 70 hours a week for 'no extra comp' then this would be a different story.