I don't know about optimal, but just like any other market, the job market is symmetrical. Why shouldn't employees who can pick successful companies out of a crowd make more money? Investors do.
When a startup gives equity, they are doing it so they don't have to pay as much cash, since the cash is more valuable at the time. (Otherwise they would just issue more equity to pay the employees in cash)
As such, the chef is being given a lottery ticket in return for accepting a pay cut.
Imagine 2 scenarios for a corporate chef in San Francisco, who expects his next job to last 10 years: 1) He goes work at Safeway, and earns $60K. 2) He goes to work at Google, and earns $50K with a very high risk lottery ticket that has an NPV of $200K, or $20K/year. (Say 1 in 100 shot of getting $20 million, or use Black-Sholes on an option)
Who are we to begrudge him if #2 pays out? The company does it because it's better for them than getting more VC money to pay the extra $10K.
For the chef, it's a better deal than Vegas, Lotto, or the options market.
Once we agree on that, we can debate whether lotteries are a great way for our economic system to allocate wealth.
But it's also worth considering that there is softer forms of equity, especially in knowledge work, that likely accrues faster working at a successful company. In other words, when "investing in your career", picking good investments is important, regardless of how many shares you may walk away with.
In that way, even given two job offers with no equity, there are probably benefits to taking the job at the company most likely to succeed.