This sounds to me like a fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamics of a startup vs big company.
In a startup, every employee has an important bearing on the success or failure of the company. Getting the right people on the team is priority number one for a budding startup, and to get the best people you have to promise them a piece of the spoils.
In a typical big company, only a handful of people have enough authority to steer the ship. For everyone else, their roles usually aren't mission-critical, or they're relatively easy to replace. You therefore don't need to pay them as well.
This isn't about "being fair and equitable" or "sharing our wealth" for its own sake, this is still just about economics. More people are getting stock at tech companies because those people's skills and contributions are more directly linked to the success of those companies. It just doesn't make sense to be giving stock to pilots, pharmacists, and factory workers - if they're amazing at their jobs, it has at most a marginal affect on the company as a whole, and if they quit, the show will go on.
Don't get me wrong, I'm completely in support of giving junior people meaningful equity, for a number of reasons. But it still needs to make sense. There are good reasons why we don't see it in other industries.