Does it follow from this that the existing level of real wages accurately measures the marginal disutility of labour?

由此是否可以得出现有的实际工资水平准确地衡量了劳动力的边际负效用？

This level cannot be greater than full employment, i.e. the real wage cannot be less than the marginal disutility of labour.

这个水平不能高于充分就业， 即实际工资不能低于劳动的边际负效用。

(5) is, therefore, subject to the condition that N cannot exceed the value which reduces the real wage to equality with the marginal disutility of labour.

因此， (5) 的条件是 N 不能超过使实际工资降低到与劳动的边际负效用相等的价值。

If this is not true, then there is no longer any reason to expect a tendency towards equality between the real wage and the marginal disutility of labour.

如果这不是真的，那么就不再有任何理由期望实际工资与劳动的边际负效用之间存在趋于平等的趋势。

If this is true, the wage-goods equivalent of the existing money-wage is not an accurate indication of the marginal disutility of labour, and the second postulate does not hold good.

如果这是真的，那么与现有货币工资等价的工资品就不是劳动边际负效用的准确指示，第二个假设也不成立。

Now, in so far as the classical theory assumes that real wages are always equal to the marginal disutility of labour and that the latter increases when employment increases, so that the labour supply will fall off; cet.

现在，就经典理论而言，假设实际工资总是等于劳动的边际负效用，并且后者随着就业增加而增加，因此劳动力供给会下降； cet。

Thus the volume of employment is not determined by the marginal disutility of labour measured in terms of real wages, except in so far as the supply of labour available at a given real wage sets a maximum level to employment.

因此，就业量不是由以实际工资衡量的劳动力的边际负效用决定的，除非在给定实际工资下可用的劳动力供应设定了就业的最高水平。