[pragmacoders]

If the first employee had left their college, family, or country to join the startup - would they have gotten as much stock as the founder? How much risk must the first employee take on in order to be compensated at the same level?

On the same note - the lack of a paycheck says nothing about the risk of a founder. A founder may very well start with more money, more opportunity, or a bigger safety net than any future employees.

The lack of a paycheck also doesn't tell us anything about how much the founder's skills and creative input contributed to the success of the company VS the first employees.

If they both have been there since the beginning, it is very possible that the company would similarly not exist if the first employees hadn't joined. So "The company couldn't exist without the founder" could also hold true for "The company couldn't exist without the first employees".

I think it's an interesting question - should you be compensated for your contributions to the success of the company or should you be compensated for the risk you took on in working for it.

I feel as though most founders would agree with being compensated for your contributions to success. Though most founders also wouldn't give their first employee's a similar cut of the reward, to themselves.

[mxcrossb]

Yes I think here we have to understand risk as meaning opportunity cost. If employ 1 is getting paid less than he would at google, then the opportunity to earn that money is weighed against the opportunity to own part of this startup.