I was talking about base salary. Zipline has been very proactive about making adjustments to stay fair and competitive, and I have only positive things to say. Regarding total compensation, yes Zipline equity is riskier than Google stock grants. I'm not going to share details, but so far it's trending favorably.
I've never worried about compensation details so much, and instead tried to find projects with interesting technical problems that bring intrinsic value to humanity, and a company of people worth spending my life with. My first job out of school, my salary was 40k below other offers I had. It just seemed like the best use of my time and energy. In time it brought me what I can only describe as an embarrassment of riches. My coworkers on the self driving car project at Google were perhaps the most brilliant people I've ever met. To paraphrase Zipline's CEO, they want employees doing the best work of their lives, and it's a marathon rather than a sprint. I have countless examples of the company, its employees, and its management going above and beyond. We're literally saving lives, too.
Google's equity is cash. Ziplines is not real. I would much rather work at Zipline but given the delta in cost I would rather not forgo $1-200K a year to work there given bay area housing costs.
Each person has their own risk tolerance. Not taking on any risk at all is certainly safe, but also limiting. I've always taken a probabilistic "expected value" approach when weighing financial decisions, and so far it's worked out favorably. I don't think it's fair to conflate liquidity with reality. My equity in Zipline is real enough, at least to the Internal Revenue Service!
edit: Ah, he's counting start-up equity as not worthless. That's definitely one way to value it.