> But really why is that level of equity share of any influence in anyone's hiring equation?
To be fair the article doesn't say if it influences many people or not. I do think it is putting emphasis on something that is simply of no real importance to most people in the job market.
For example, it isn't clear to me if those jobs are paying market rate salaries or not. If that is the case then "equity" may as well be lumped into the 'free E-ZPass', 'paid gym memberships' category (not something to write home about, but nice all the same).
With that said, I'd cut any interview short that was expecting me to take a serious pay-cut for a fractional equity share.
To be fair the article doesn't say if it influences many people or not. I do think it is putting emphasis on something that is simply of no real importance to most people in the job market.
For example, it isn't clear to me if those jobs are paying market rate salaries or not. If that is the case then "equity" may as well be lumped into the 'free E-ZPass', 'paid gym memberships' category (not something to write home about, but nice all the same).
With that said, I'd cut any interview short that was expecting me to take a serious pay-cut for a fractional equity share.