taste satisfaction. These are all ex post descriptions of realized outcomes rather than
intentions. Together they give
output = investment + invested consumption + positive self-invested work — human depreciation + net transfer + exhaust = investment + invested consumption + self-invested work — recovered human depreciation + net transfer + exhaust. (6.24)
This much is certitude. I now apply (5.9), which includes
consumption = invested consumption + pure consumption,
to reach the Y rule in its general form:
output = investment + consumption + self-invested work — human depreciation + net transfer. (6.25)
The net transfer term disappears at the collective scale.
Although (6.24) is logical certitude infered from definitions, (5.9) and consequently (6.25) are not. I cannot rule out the possibility of a third kind of consumption recovered in work products as per Quesnay. | hope that my interpretation of age- wage profiles in the light of the boss-secretary parable has revealed that as improbable. The same holds for my derivation of the pay rule through Ben-Porath’s equation and (6.18). (6.18), my inference that human cash flow equals less invested consumption, also trusts that all maintenance consumption is exhausted in
satisfying tastes.
Summary
Accounting for human capital is much like accounting in a firm. Expected recovery of human depreciation in pay is logical certitude illustrated in age-wage profiles and in the boss-secretary parable. The pay rule is not entirely logical certitude, however, as
it also asserts that maintenance consumption is not recovered. Age-wage profiles
Chapter 6: Parallels with the Firm 2/4/16 24
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011058