I have an offer that vests over 6 years with a 1.5 year cliff. Is that normal? I'm used to 4 years 1 year cliff, but the CEO said that 1.5/6 are common for companies that "want employees who care about the long term"
Mhmm, I wouldn't put it like GP (someone wanting to take advantage of...). The large majority of employments DO NOT give stock options. Shit, in most countries that's unheard of (in Mexico for example, someone with a similar offer would think of the stock options as the cherry on the cake).
Nonetheless, given YOUR market, you should check whether the other parts of the compensation they are giving you are right. For example, there was the case of Mailchimp a couple of days ago: They gave no stock to their employees. However, in theory their compensation package was good in other ways. So if the company is offering you a good salary + benefits (what about 401k matching? PTO? sick days? gym membership, WFH and whatnot), that will give you the full picture.
[1] What is the CEO's cliff and vesting?
[2] Longer vesting means more stock, around 50% in this case, for companies who want employees long-term. (The relevant measure is stock/year, not total stock.)
[3] Ask the CEO to name three comparable companies with such terms.
If there's a hostile reaction to [3], you just learned something valuable.
If there's a neutral reaction, you can say that you're evaluating the CEO's ability to negotiate and persuade, which is true.
An employer who wants to keep you will demonstrate that by compensating you well and giving you an opportunity to augment your skills.
This offerer sounds like someone who has experienced turnover problems and has decided that it's everyone else's fault.