As mentioned, my argument has to do with any nominal net wage increase.
> Of course it's logically possible for tax subsidies to have
> no important impact on inflation, including localized inflation,
> since the subsidy could be small compared to the associated
> economy.
This means the impact is proportional, not zero.
> There has not been much in the way of progressive tax legislation
> for some time. The EITC is for those who are not likely to
> save much, with or without the EITC.
If they are not saving, where is the money going? Rent?
Since they are are not saving, are workers, in the end, consuming a larger _percentage share_ of the national product, or not?
>From what I understand they are not, thus what good is a larger
nominal net wage if the level of relative consumption and savings
remains unchanged, or even decreases?
> Even so, it is possible for
> wage subsidies (like the EITC) or minimum wage legislation or
> collective bargaining to raise wages without doing much for
> capital formation, insofar as workers choose not to save more.
The point is the _workers_ are not forming capital, in other words, no basis for class mobility.
Is not saving more simply a choice?
Cheers.
-- Dmytri Kleiner editing text files since 1981
http://www.telekommunisten.net