not if the pool can change to meet the demand of the economy which is what the federal reserve does.
Nope. You don't have a clue what zero sum means.
If the pool has X in it, if one person get's a larger percent of that pool, then someone else HAS to get a smaller percent of that pool. It's a mathematical law.
Just for example, maybe the pool has 1000 units in it, ten people share from that pool, The boss get's 21% (210 units), and the other nine get 9% each (90 units).
Now let's say that the next year the pool grows to 2000 units, if the boss decides that he is the reason that the size of the pool grew, and thus he is due a 1000 unit bonus on top of his 210 unit salary, he is then getting 60.5% of the pool, while the remaining 9 people can only average 4.4% of the pool - their percent of the pool shrank, even though the size of the pool increased.
People look at this, and see that the workers still got paid as much, so they assume that no harm was caused to either the workers or the macroeconomy by the increase in production/profits not being shared equally.
What they fail to realize is that unless the fruits of the increasing productivity is shared more or less equally between all income classes, demand will not keep pace with productivity. So in the second year, the company produced twice as much, yet the workers can't purchase twice as much, and the boss, who acquired all of the fruits of the increase in production (his income went up over 500%), is highly unlikely to purchase 500% more.
So in the third year, the company would likely find that they had an excess of supply, and they would fire workers as they don't need as many. Worker income would tend to be depressed even more because we now have excess workers, which of course results in even lower demand. Ultimately, there is only enough demand for one worker (the owner), and he is only producing enough to satisfy is personal need, because there are no customers.