So here's the deal from my perspective:
A venture-backed startup is typically looking at a $1B valuation goal, with $300-$600M being "successful," and $100M is, at best, a consolation prize. From the perspective of outsiders, it's tempting to only consider orders of magnitude, but note that the difference between a $80M acquisition and a $150M acquisition -- which if you're just reading about it in the press are probably both compressed to "around $100M," is an almost 2x payout difference for investors.
0.2% isn't almost nothing. $200k from a consolation prize is not almost nothing. $600k-$1M from a basically successful but non-unicorn monetization is definitely not nothing!
0.2% in a pre-series-A company is also just the very start of a long conversation, not the end of it. You are of course correct that there is likely to be dilution. There are also going to be more stock grants long before any monetization event. If you stick out a job that starts with a 0.2% grant for long enough for that grant to fully vest, much less for long enough for it to monetize, it would not be, in my experience, unlikely to have another 0.2% (of the original size share-pool) coming.
My experience is also that if there is a lot of dilution, the company will at least mitigate that dilution for employees with new grants. Maybe not totally counteract it, and maybe not mitigate it at all if the dilution is, like 20%, but if your grants are halved by dilution, I would expect the company to bring you back up to 80%+.
I think that a lot of people fixate on the initial grant. That makes sense if you're a founder or, like, a really really early employee who took basically no salary and instead got 1%+. Maybe those people never see significantly more stock after their initial grant. My experience from having taken a few offers in the 0.1-0.5% range is that you will see materially more stock in new grants as time goes on. Of course, that's only a few companies, and maybe I've just dealt with unusually reasonable companies.