That rests on the perverse assumption that founders are the most talented and deserving individuals in the universe, and everyone one else should be happy to uncomplainingly serve the interests of these fabulous ubermensch.

To say that’s a naive and inaccurate view of the world would be an understatement.

I respectfully very much disagree. Even Sam Altman has been arguing that founders should give more equity to startups, mainly because employees who are usually sold on "equity dreams" are all coming to realize those equity dreams are peanuts.

>I don’t know when this dramatic shift happened to Americans to believe building a successful company is mostly luck, but it’s depressing.

Because it's true? Studies (Gompers, et. al. (2009)) indicate that a second time entrepreneur has a 30% chance of success versus a 20% for a first time one. So there's some skill in it but it mostly comes down to luck.

edit: And if you're arguing skill then clearly the skill of the early employees matter tremendously and not just the skill of the founder. So why do you think it's wrong for those employees to get more stake?