“By 1958, the Le Guins had settled in Portland, where Charles took a teaching position at Portland State College (now Portland State University) and Ursula began her career as a writer. They raised three children. Ursula Le Guin once famously said: “One person cannot do two fulltime jobs, but two persons can do three fulltime jobs, if the work is honestly shared.”"

The context there is white privilege, but she has a good point about some things that are privileges that should be taken away (the ability to ignore bad stuff that happens to the unprivileged group) and rights that should be given to everyone (the ability to go through life without having that bad stuff happen to you.)

Somewhere or other Ursula K. LeGuin talks a bit about this. My faulty memory turns up “One person cannot do the work of two, but two can do the work of three,” but that is probably a bad paraphrase.

My thoughts on the last question:
Privilege is only zero-sum in the presence of scarcity, where if one person has enough someone else is going without. I don’t think we actually live in that world; many people have more than they need, and some things, like ideas and information, are rapidly dropping to a marginal cost of zero.

One the one hand, thinking about it as a zero-sum game can be a good way to get groups with privilege to realize they have it (like that 80% of men in open source). Most people don’t look at their life and think, “I have privilege,” but it’s a lot easier to get them to look at other people’s lives (often using the passive voice) and get them to realize that those people don’t. A professor at my college once pointed out that politicians were always talking about “under-privileged children”. “You never hear them talking about those over-privileged children,” he said, “it’s not like that privilege just disappears!” On the other hand, it suggests that in a more-equal society people would be worse off, which I don’t think is true. Would people with privilege really miss it if it was gone? Most of them don’t notice it exists now. Could they be enriched by living in a culture where their successes were their own and societal approval not contingent on things they have no control over? There is anecdotal evidence that privilege isn’t the answer to everything: the suicide rate among white men is significantly higher than other demographics, for example (though that clearly ignores other dimensions of intersectionality, or the personal nature of those tragedies.)

I think there is an advantage for privileged people to see it as a zero-sum game, since it means they a) have a justification for wanting to keep it no matter how unfair it is and b) they aren’t challenged to define themselves in positive terms. I’m not going to explain this very well since I’m writing as I think, but I’ll take a stab anyway. For example, in the face of feminism masculinity (as a hegemonic institution) has become defensive, instead of asking what masculinity could be like, or pushing for men to be allowed to mop, raise children and wear a wide variety of fashion. Masculinity doesn’t have to be defined as “that stuff that’s not feminine”, but it is, and so it can encompass just about anything that isn’t specifically labeled as “feminine”. As long as feminism is fighting for women to have access to the privilege men have, no one is asking picking up the house isn’t a masculine activity (after all, under traditional stereotypes men are organized and logical, which is what putting things away is all about…), and there is the continued fear that if women do everything than there will be nothing left of masculinity, since it’s only identifying feature was “not those people over there.”

I don’t know if any of that is what you were asking here.