I also don't get how Jennifer Lawrence fits in any of this. As a counter-example, Chris Pratt, an equally-successful actor, was discovered by a stroke of luck when he was waiting tables in Hawaii.
Listen, I get it. It's cute to come up with pseudo-mathematical models that justify one opinion over another and that might help us make decision-making easier (Startup A vs. Startup B), but allow me to make a controversial point: if you're thinking about working for a startup, don't. Starups traditionally underpay (due to offering equity), often have brogrammer cultures (and no real HR departments), will fire/lay you off at the drop of a hat, and working late hours with little recognition will be expected. The only exception to this rule is if you're one of the first ten-ish employees -- and, obviously, if you're a founder.
For obvious reasons, cap tables highly favor early investors and owners. If you have a high-risk/high-reward type A personality, start a company! If you just want to have a career for a few dozen years and then more-or-less comfortably retire, join Google, or Facebook, or whatever. It makes absolutely no sense to join a startup if you're not even getting one point of equity.
Further, vesting will absolutely screw employees -- with either inflated share costs (if you leave the company) or with unfair lockout schedules (if you ever IPO). Not only that, but equity is utterly opaque: you literally have no idea how much it's actually worth. It's important to understand that startups are a gamble for founders and for investors -- which is exactly why I love startups: it's a perfect mix of skill and luck. With that said, in my opinion, for mid-to-late stage employees, the opportunity cost no longer makes sense. Unless you need a job to pay rent -- I've been there :)