I dislike that approach (maybe because I&#x27;m one of those guys without a trust fund who could never work for a startup without a salary). &quot;Living expenses&quot; are often far more than that for someone in their 30s: mortgage, student loans, car payment, etc.<p>Right now, founding a startup is overwhelmingly for people from privileged backgrounds who can afford to be bold and work for no money because they have a safety net (parents, trust fund, etc) they can rely on if they fail. It sucks. There&#x27;s a reason there are hundreds of food delivery startups every year: the only people with the ability to start companies don&#x27;t have enough experience with the world to know what would even make a good company. Sometimes they stumble onto something wonderful, but most of the time they just fail, go live with their parents for a few months, then go start up something else. Repeat until they get tired and just get a 9-5 job at Google or Facebook.<p>Every individual has a market value. If I make $200k&#x2F;yr right now, and I get an offer to work for a startup where I would make $100k&#x2F;yr, how is it fair that someone who previously made $75k&#x2F;yr gets the same amount of equity as me? After all, I&#x27;m giving up $100k&#x2F;yr just to work here! It&#x27;s better to ask someone &quot;what would it take to get you to work here?&quot; and pay them that. Then give them equity as an incentive to be successful.<p>I know the Silicon Valley hegemony is against talking about money like this, but people definitely think it.