Really depends on the job market though. If the startup goes belly up but you were making good money in the interim and you can quickly find a new job, it's not much risk.
A founder who eats in to savings and goes unpaid for two years is on an entirely different level of risk profile.
But yes, if your primary concern is job security, in general you should not be working for a startup, regardless of how many points you get.
I'm not arguing that it isn't more risky for the founder. I'm saying that the payoff potential that remains esp when you look at the pool of startups, is almost never worth it compared to a job at a bigco, even at the top end.
Eg this is me explaining why I wouldn't work at a startup as I shoulder more risk and very very low chance at a payoff better than I could get at a bigco, and worse case you spend 5 more years at the big co and you can be getting into founder level payoffs.
At that point why even take a risk if there isn't a reward if you are a strong engineer. The only thing that makes sense to me is to be a founder, or go work a stable high paying job if you're able to.
This pay structure greatly limits access to very experienced employees for a startup.
I think the key thing missing from your analysis is that some (most?) people aren't optimizing their careers for minimal risk and maximal pay. There are a great many other factors at play.
I didn't say there wernt, this is a message about my personal pov written while on the phone on the can, not a treatise or full data based coverage of all workers.
A founder who eats in to savings and goes unpaid for two years is on an entirely different level of risk profile.
But yes, if your primary concern is job security, in general you should not be working for a startup, regardless of how many points you get.