as the application of (A3.5) to human capital. This confirms the traditional view
(A5.1) if (A5.5) is right in interpreting prior claims on pay as zero.
If 1 was wrong there, and Quesnay and the physiocrats were right, some
maintenance consumption would be recovered in revenue of its suppliers. Then I should have written something like C=C_+C_ +C, , where “transfer consumption” C,_ was the value recovered by suppliers. This mathematical possibility, which I do
not claim to have disproved, explains why I do not claim that the pay rule is logical certainty as a whole. | claim certitude only for its most surprising feature: human depreciation is expected to be recovered in pay. The rest follows only if (A5.5) is
right as I think it is. Meanwhile (A5.5) also gives
C=C,+C,, (A5.8) where C is consumption. Saved work W. means the self-invested output of human capital. It includes the subliminal and effortless work of job experience as well as the effort and
opportunity cost of literal schooling, and also includes any free growth of human
capital. Then
W=W,+W.. (A5.9)
The growth truism (A4.3) for human capital becomes
H=C,.+W_(> 0)—D(H)=C, +W, — D(H), . (A5.10) Human Capital as Present Value Note APPENDIX A: The Argument in Notation 3/7/16 14.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011140