No, it doesn't. The Economical/Relational subjection in the incarnation has to do with the human nature. It has nothing whatsoever to do with ontological subordination.
Jesus Christ is equal to the Father according to the Divine Nature.
John 10:30 I and the Father are one.
Jesus Christ is subordinate to the Father according to the human nature.
John 14:28 the Father is greater than I
Jesus Christ is not YHWH according to the human nature. Pointing out the humanity of Christ doesn't negate that he isn't YHWH. Logically speaking this is called a Denying the Conjunct fallacy. Most Unitarians I've encounter says, Jesus being tempted, God cannot be tempted, therefore Jesus is not God. Or God is not a man, Jesus is a man, therefore Jesus is not God. These are all different forms of denying the conjunct.
Only to make the Father to be all-in all respectfully to the economical subjection and according to the human nature. After all, Jesus Christ is both YHWH and man. Pointing out functions of the humanity doesn't negate that he isn't YHWH. The Bible teaches us that all things will be subjected to the Son, not only in this world, but also, the world to come. So, his authority and power still continue.
Hebrews 2:5 It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking.
1 Peter 3:22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
Ephesians 1:21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come.
Again, according to the human nature. Jesus Christ has a Father who he calls "My God" and he doesn't have "a god." In the economical function the Son is not YHWH of himself in the same way the Father is not YHWH of himself. The Father does call the Son YHWH (Hebrews 1:10-12, Psalms 102:24-27). And he is called "One LORD" in 1 Corinthians 8:6.