The first argument below is numbered 5 because it follows the four arguments in support of proposal 2.17: only individuals and non-commercial associations receive income and save.
1. Total income (TI) is, by definition, equal to the sum of total income from savings placements (SPIs) and total labor income (LI).
Noting TI = SI + LI does not however mean that it is the addition of SI to LI that determines RG.
2. Any variation in SI relative to TI is accompanied by a variation in the opposite direction of LI relative to TI.
If, for example, the SI goes from 15% to 10% of the GR and then goes back up to 20%, then the LI goes from 85% to 90% and then goes back down to 80% of the GR.
3. Let us call wages the total labor income (TI) and, for a moment, "profit" the total saving placement income (SI).
More profit makes fewer wages, and vice versa, on the macronomic scale of total income (TI). But this is only at the level of a country or a group of countries. A greater or lesser profit result does not always mean less or more wages on the mesonomic scale of an enterprise, or a group of enterprises. It is not by anomaly that quite often wage increases granted by an enterprise contribute to an increase in that enterprise Benefit's profits, both in absolute and relative terms. A theory of wages that does not take these realities into account is false.