That's actually not terrible. Looks like they have about 1000 employees, so that would be $294,000 per employee on average. Obviously a normal distribution will skew this pretty heavily so that the first 50 or so employees get most of the money and everyone else gets progressively less. Seems to be about normal for payouts on exit, though.
$828,000,000 -- directors/execs combined (38.8%, per jwegan's comment), minus Jack.
Jack himself will get as much $$$ out of Square as all his employees combined.... times FIVE.
The other 12 directors execs will split a pot that's over twice as large as all 1000 employees combined.
That's cool for you, a 5000-to-1 discrepancy between CEO and avg employee? That's the reward system that we should all embrace in this modern age? How is it any different from the cigar-chomping tophat-wearing magnates of the past? Yeah, today the founders wear cool jeans and turtlenecks, and employees DO take home a nice little down payment, but the huge dropoff between the billionaire and the rank-and-file is as disgusting as ever.
Jack had (I assume) something that was 100% his in the beginning (or his and Jim McKelvey's - I don't know the story). They built something of value. They gave parts of it away, as well as cash, to people in exchange for doing things for them. Over time, the company that he owned continued to gain value, because people were willing to pay money to that company for the service it provided. At each point, every customer they served and every employee they took on presumably thought they were getting a good, fair deal. (If you're not getting a good deal, don't do business with someone.) At the end, the thing he owned was worth $1.5B.
What should have happened differently? In some alternative universe, perhaps everyone all along the way, every possible employee, could have demanded a larger percentage of the equity in return for their labor. But they didn't. I don't see why it's necessarily reasonable to, from the outside, say that anything is wrong, and reach in and start redistributing wealth. People can probably become billionaires today more easily because technology scales better than in the past, and because there's an investment environment that supports it.
Imagine I found a company solo. All by myself. I provide a service that lots of people are willing to use, and they're willing to pay me for. Maybe I've cracked the problem of Strong AI, and I'm selling my AI's services. It's software, and it scales well, so before long my company is worth $1B. I'm still running the company all by myself. How should it play out? If I brought on an employee at some point as a sysadmin should they automatically receive a percentage? (If they negotiated for that, then yes, otherwise no.)
That is incorrect. The shares of Khosla Ventures and Sequoia Capital are shown both in the "5% Stockholders" and again shown in the "Executive Officers and Directors" section since both firms also hold seats on the board. Also, investors holding <5% stake are not represented.
The real math is 33.6% to investors holding a >5% stake, 38.8% to execs & directors, and 27.6% not represented (probably a mix of investors and the employee option pool)
At a $6B valuation, that's $294M for everyone else.