Sadly, this trap is designed quite well, while warnings about it are not designed nearly as well, and many fall into it for n years.
If there's a position, businesses expect it contributes to their profit. If the position pays $200k/yr, you can rest assured in the long run, they expect your work (or at least an average of your team, branch, etc. over that time) to produce at least what you're being paid in value. That's optimistically speaking but realistically speaking, more value must be produced than your total compensation (you're always worth more than you're being paid or compensated if a business is doing its job well). That's labor in general across the board ("skilled" or "unskilled").
The catch is when businesses overestimate a worker's value... that's when we plebeian workers are actually pulling money/value from the relationship--we're getting back more than we contribute in.
For some reason, culturally, this scenario for the laborer to pull more value than a business is taboo and seen as laziness, fraud, theft, etc. but it's somehow not taboo when the direction of the relationship changes: for a business to make money off its workers.
The additional .3x is the corporate "profit" and is distributed in any number of ways depending on how the company is set up. Its still a rational decision for all of the employees to work there.
Without emergent properties (your work + my work < our work), it really is a zero sum game. To me, you may be able to manipulate perception of value in this fashion but that's where it ends (which to be fair, is often enough).
The apple farmer sells apples because (he considers) the money is worth more than the apples. Consumers buy apples because (they consider) the apples are worth more than the money.
My perceived benefit - my compensation to you > 0 (I win = consumer surplus)
My compensation to you - your perceived cost > 0 (You win = producer surplus)
Note that those two equations are from two individual perspectives - I determine my benefit, you determine your cost. If you simplify to "benefit > your cost" and compel the exchange, you get a dystopia - compulsion "for the benefit of all/others/king/etc.", without realizing the full costs to those compelled to sacrifice. Voluntary exchange is required to allow each individual to determine their own benefits and costs.
Note also that this incorporates transaction costs inside the "benefit" or "cost". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem for more info.
In a voluntary exchange, both parties are better off than they would be otherwise - they both are both "getting back more than [they] contribute in."
If I buy an apple for a dollar, it means I consider the apple to be worth more than a dollar. At the same time, the seller values the dollar more than the apple. Both parties are better off by making the exchange.
Employment is the same: the employer considers the labor performed to be worth more than the compensation (or they wouldn't employ the person), and the employee considers the compensation to be worth more than the labor (or they leave).
If you're not leaving, then why not? Maybe you value the predictability/security of a regular paycheck (though that can end at any time). Maybe you don't know how to capture the value of your time working on your own (you can learn). Or maybe the resources/connections/structure of the company allows your labor to produce more value than you could alone, so your labor is more valuable for the company than it would be elsewhere (an expert on self-driving cars may not be able to add much value to a pharmacy, but can add a lot of value to waymo/uber/tesla).