The point here is that due to the factors the author noted (and probably others), the perceived value of options in nonpublic companies is now low enough that many (most?) candidates/employees no longer consider it relevant. I happen to agree with that choice, regardless of whether the expected value to the employee of the options is actually zero or just some very small number. We can debate the true ev of an option, we can apply various formulae to attempt to compute it, and we can each agree to devalue various restrictions differently according to our own preferences. But I think we can probably agree that in many if not most situations, the value of the options to the employee is too small to affect the decisions that employee is going to make. It doesn't matter whether that value is zero or $50 or $5000, it matters only that it's too small to be material.

To the extent that this is a problem for founders/owners, it's largely of their own making. It seems like it should be easy enough to correct if they want to, but they will have to give up many if not all of the wildly favorable (to them) terms and/or give up more equity to their employees to do it. The alternatives all involve paying more cash, which is probably the right answer for everyone anyway; it's disappointing that the author didn't even seriously discuss the possibility of simply paying higher salaries in lieu of equity. Apparently that's simply taboo.