(Please read this comment carefully.) The author's comparison at the end of the article is correct.
It is obvious that it is much better to get the package "2% of company shares, Priority on exit, Invest small part of his capital" for the same $50k (i.e. the programmer's guaranteed lost income) when you are paying the money directly.
Further, investing $50k directly does not even involve working full-time or part-time (except on financials related to the round), and has an equal chance of both lost money (company doesn't get on sure footing), and returns on the money, that the programmer faces.
So bottom line. If you have identified a company that you think has good chance of success, you should simply decline to work for them for equity and a lowered wage: instead, find a source of great personal wealth, and invest a small part of it directly in the company.
Working for your equity means you're getting screwed. Being very rich gives you a lot better deal.
The alternative is not "be born rich"; it sounds more like "save the extra 50K, then start your own company". Yes, this is harder than it sounds - but it's still easier than choosing your parents.
If you are making $50k/yr, or even $100k/yr, you cannot invest in startups; professionally-managed startups won't take investments from people who aren't Reg D accredited.
Even if you were accredited, virtually all startups are closely held and selective about who they'll take capital from.
Private company equity vehicles are one of the least attractive asset classes you can hold; they're among the most illiquid and volatile places you can put your money. Startup investing works almost exclusively for people who can (a) afford to spread money around lots of startups and (b) have startup investments be a small part of their portfolio. That's a description that matches very few professional developers.
Your exposure to the upside of startups is going to come from starting or working at startups, not from investing in them yourself.
Fair enough, but having been through the boom and bust of the late 90s, exposure to startups can also be overrated.
Yes, the upside potential can be huge, and you get to play with some bleeding edge technology, but you're also dealing with a lot of inexperienced owners/managers, VC's with their own agendas, overworked employees, and an unhealthy amount of greed.
Yes, there are startups that manage to avoid this, but like in any industry, good companies are the exception rather than the rule.
You can legally invest in startups without being Reg D accredited. However, most professionally-managed startups will not take investments from non-accredited investors because they don't want to go through the hassle of making sure they qualify for exemptions from Reg D.
Private Placements and Intrastate Offerings are the two primary exemptions to Reg D, and they swallow up the rule in general practice. Reg D does not affect most companies; indeed, it is only an issue in the startup world because some lawyers have tried to make it an issue in an effort to drum up business.
It is obvious that it is much better to get the package "2% of company shares, Priority on exit, Invest small part of his capital" for the same $50k (i.e. the programmer's guaranteed lost income) when you are paying the money directly.
Further, investing $50k directly does not even involve working full-time or part-time (except on financials related to the round), and has an equal chance of both lost money (company doesn't get on sure footing), and returns on the money, that the programmer faces.
So bottom line. If you have identified a company that you think has good chance of success, you should simply decline to work for them for equity and a lowered wage: instead, find a source of great personal wealth, and invest a small part of it directly in the company.
Working for your equity means you're getting screwed. Being very rich gives you a lot better deal.