No. A negative externality is a cost to a transaction that's not borne by one of the parties to the transaction (and thus cannot be priced into the transaction). "This job really sucks" is not an externality -- that fact is priced into what the worker demands in payment for performing that job. "Building this factory will incerase the risk of Terry down the street getting cancer" is an externality -- Terry is not a party to the transaction and cannot demand payment as compensation for the increased risk.
This textbook response doesn't address what often happens in reality.
Wages don't always capture the true costs of production. The public burden of the coal miner who gets lung cancer can be viewed as a negative externality.
Indeed, many labor protections in the US seek to specifically address this type of externality.
No, it doesn't address the phenomenon that the grandparent comment was concerned with (worker exploitation). But it doesn't claim to. It simply, and correctly, establishes that worker treatment isn't an externality. "Textbook" definitions have nothing to do with it.
This is my point. Ignoring concerns of worker exploitation and focusing on textbook definitions comes off as dismissive, even if that wasn't the intent.
Similarly, your comment comes off as dismissive which highlights the importance of the context that I added.
Worker exploitation does result in negative externalities, even if the exploitation itself is not an externality.
All 'rayiner said was that worker exploitation isn't an externality. The comment to which he was responding said literally nothing other than that worker exploitation was an externality. Worker exploitation is not an externality. I'm not sure how you're finding a way to object to this.
