As to people not moving to countries to get welfare, there is actually enormous evidence that people do that all the time.
The most extreme example would be the EU where families will move from one country to the next as their welfare expires in that country. The EU rules allow for free movement throughout the EU. But the welfare is provided by the host country. Most of those countries have limits on the welfare. So what will happen is a family will go to country X, stay there for five or so... then the welfare runs out and they move to another country... and rinse and repeat.
As to being a thinly disguised racist, I am nothing of the kind. The US has the loosest immigration policy in the Americas and yet morons like yourself suggest we're racists for even having an immigration policy. Never mind that only natural born mexicans are allowed to own property within 50 miles of the coast in mexico. Never mind that I can't own a business in mexico unless I'm a citizen. Never mind a lot of other things the mexicans have done over the years to marginalize americans in Mexico.
And yet we're called the racists by fools like yourself.
You've no intellectual integrity. And as such your stupid insults carry no weight.
Yawn... okay... I'll just instantly win this argument.
What do things cost in the city versus what they cost in rural areas?
More or less?
Things in cities especially dense cities cost more then they cost pretty much anywhere else on earth.
Now you could say the income people earn is higher so people can just charge more. However, those sellers exist in a competitive market where they're constantly trying to out compete each other.
Market forces should drive the price down close to what it actually costs especially for plentiful goods supplied by many suppliers. Gasoline, potatoes, flour... whatever. And all of it is more expensive in cities.
If your logic about efficiency were accurate then the cost in cities should be lower and the denser the city the lower the costs should be... yet they're not.
The costs are higher.
Before you respond to this actually think the argument through a bit. Don't just grasp for the first straw to contract me but actually go through the economic and logistical logic a bit to construct a rational argument.
Cities are only efficient for people... not goods. They are a hold over from a time when travel and communication was so impractical that it was better to pack everyone into one place rather then try to coordinate things over a wider area.
However, today we have airplanes, cars, and the internet. We don't need these cities anymore.
The explosion of the Suburban sprawl was a direct result of the automobile. It made commuting possible.
Telecommuting remains problematical for many businesses that can't manage employees properly via remote. However, that is a managerial issue that will be dealt with over time mostly by business schools once they realize they need to teach prospective managers how to manage employees through the internet.
Cities as we know them especially cities like New York, London, and Chicago are unnecessary, inefficient, and really a hold over from a less sophisticated age.
I've been around for awhile, sir. I've listened to these things in as much detail as anyone. They've made a lot of bogus predictions.
Day after Tomorrow type bullshit. You want to claim they've got a clean record? Fine.
Then we go back to the politics and you can suck wind.
If you want to get anywhere on this issue you're going to have to put your horseshit away so we can have a real discussion. If all you've got for me is "this" then you're not having a scientific discussion. You're testing political strength versus political strength. That's not a fight you're doing well in at this point.
Here is the issue. You're forcing this stuff on people. That has failed. Internationally and domestically. The attempt to force it has failed.
So... your two options besides that are giving up or trying to actually convince people.
Those are your options.
I assume you're going to keep trying to force people... beat your head bloody on that wall if you want. But it accomplishes nothing.
Per capita energy use must include the energy cost of all imported goods and services. When you factor that in cities can't possibly be using less energy.
That's just silly.
As to infrastructure, in rural areas most of it is provided locally as opposed to imported from a great distance. Water, food, and power tend to come from a close by source where as in cities it is brought in from a great distance.
Again, show me the research. I'm calling bullshit on this one.
The politicians would call your bluff. You're not going to deport those people that got amensty. What is more, the federal government is already breaking federal law by not enforcing immigration law.
The problem is there is no "or else" clause in any of these laws that the politicians find PERSONALLY threatening so they have no reason to care about them.
Imagine if none of the laws you dealt with on a daily basis had an "or else" clause? Don't park in front of a fire hydrant... but if you we won't do anything. Don't run a red light... but if you do we'll just honk at you.
And that is a big part of the problem. The executive doesn't have to follow the law. They can just do whatever they want and all congress can do about it is sputter.
Its not a mistake. Its a political ploy that works.
Again, you're not getting anywhere on this issue unless you're willing to look very hard at your proposed solutions and make them reasonable.
In regards to evolution, I can assure you that if the eugenics movement were actually a threat, we'd have wide spread denial of evolution. Yes, I know there are evangelicals that deny it but I'm not talking about them. I'm saying upwards of 60-70 percent of the population would be against evolution if it were believed that something like eugenics were being justified by it.
That's just the politics. If you want people to be reasonable on the science you're going to have to not try to use the science to justify unacceptable policy.
Here is the central mistake you're making:
You're thinking "I have science on my side, I can win any argument and get people to do anything I want so long as I said SCIENCE".
Well it doesn't work that way. Science can be used to support a position but it does not instantly win any discussion on policy. And if you try to do that then everything you're doing will come under attack including the science.
Non-coercive policies that transform industries by replacing existing practices with more sustainable ones without punishing people or being so inflexible as to realize that in some cases there are not any other alternatives.
Here's my point. You can't force people to accept this... you're not strong enough to do it.
So any policy that relies upon you forcing people is unrealistic.
What you need are policies that people choose to follow without being force or that benefit them.
Wrong. My solutions are about getting people to WANT to do the right thing of making it in their interest to do the right thing. Which means wider adoption.
Your solutions require putting a gun to the head of billions of people and nation states that will not comply with your orders.
As such, your authoritarian model not only unethical but counter productive since you won't get compliance.
All you'll do is splutter and rant... pissing people off... and accomplishing nothing.
And because you refuse to listen to anyone its impossible to reason with you. You're just a deluded fanatic that doesn't understand the limitations of force.
No, I'm claiming that if the solution causes bigger problems then we shouldn't do it.
AGW is not the biggest problem we face in the world. Your ideas could cause wars and famine. We've seen nothing from AGW that implies that it will be worse then that.
Yes, there are issues in marginal societies but those societies are very sensitive and always have problems. What is more their problems are not destabilizing to global order.
Your ideas would put unbearable stresses on global diplomatic and trade systems.
You would get lots of countries that would not comply or would cheat the system. Then you'd put sanctions on those countries... then those countries and other complaint countries would find ways to cheat the sanctions... which would force countries to put additional pressure on other countries to actually impose proper sanctions or enforce existing ones that were reasonable. Then you'd get some countries that would leave the coalition... and it just wouldn't be sustainable.
Your idea assumes you actually can force people.
Consider this for one tiny moment.
What if you can't?
What if you can't force people?
What if you actually had to get them to comply by choice because you weren't strong enough to do anything else?
Did that ever occur to you? Or do you really think you can force the entire planet to obey your rules?
As to earth ships, they adapt the building style to the location. They've built them in jungles and deserts... they can build them anywhere. Part of the point of them is to have them harmonize with the local environment. So every one is built to fit its climate.
As to city dwellers being more efficient, I'd love to see the research on that because its obviously crap.
Many rural communities supply many of the things they use. They often provide their own meat, milk, produce, as well as other staples.
Cities import literally everything. Its pretty much impossible for that to be more sustainable.
I suspect that what they did to reach that number is they counted all the pollution in rural areas caused by producing goods for export and then didn't pass that pollution on to the cities when they imported. That's the same fallacy that many people believe in when they think the US has radically reduced its CO2 when what we've done in most cases is simply export our pollution to china. Its still our pollution if we import those goods.
I think we might say we need a better language. That said, the web is a riskier medium from a security stand point. I don't know if I want more powerful programs running at that level because you could as easily have worms written into the damned things.
I already use noscript on most sites to disable everything but HTML. I really don't want to put up with more of this stuff since most of just makes the site slower, delivers ads, tracks my movements on the internet, or attempts to throw pop ups all over the place.
I'd just assume have the coding on sites remain as simple as possible.
You have a faster method of sequestering meaningful amounts of CO2 that does not cause further problems?
Someone suggested we release iron oxide powder into the oceans to cause algae blooms that will take carbon out of the atmosphere and sequester it at the sea floor... but that apparently will increase ocean acidity so...
What if your idea? all we can do is reduce our emissions. Anything else seems to either cause more problems or have political costs we can't afford.
That CO2 must be reduced is vague. How much does it have to be reduced. How quickly. What means are applied to do that. What punishments are employed to enforce the rules. What technological changes are employed to aid the effort.
The details matter.
I mean... I could promise to sit on the couch and drink beer and reduce my personal CO2 emissions which though irrelevant to global emissions would lower total CO2 emissions by an extremely tiny amount... So mission accomplished right? CO2 emissions reduced.
Obviously not. You need to flesh out your idea and the past ideas when fleshed out tended to be utterly unacceptable.
That is what you have to work on. Make the idea something that doesn't ruin people and we can probably sign off on it. If you're dead set on destroying people though it shouldn't come as any surprise that people are going to try to defend themselves.
I was thinking farm kids would do it as they did in the past. Those kids are White, Asian, and Hispanic. There aren't many Black farmers in the US.
Which is too bad. Concentrating themselves in urban slums has not been good for their culture, economic position, educational standing, or any of a thousand demographic stats.
It is not the responsibility of the United States to compensate for the failings of the Mexican government.
The Mexican government for more then a generation has off loaded the consequences of its corruption and incompetence on the United States. We have paid for it.
The United States should take steps to either prevent Mexico from doing this or compensate the United States proportionately for the cost.
Again... the proposed solutions are unacceptable and as such efforts are taken to frustrate the entire mechanism.
Lets say for example there were a eugenics movement in the US that proposed sterilizing people that were seen as inferior or something equally monstrous.
Wouldn't you then attack the scientific basis of eugenics? What if the supporters of the position made points that were scientifically valid? There is a cold logic in the idea that isn't wrong as far as science goes. But doesn't matter because its deeply immoral.
Likewise, the people opposing the AGW movement see the solutions as poison. And so will do pretty much anything to shut it down. That means attacking the foundation of the theory as well as the credibility of the scientists as well as the data as well as everything.
Everything is attacked because the solution is unacceptable and the process has never obeyed any notion of due process in regards to determining what should or shouldn't be done.
If you subject the whole process to something that will respect everyone's interests and ensure that the whole thing don't turn into a license to screw people then you'll find less opposition to AGW.
That sorry set up you're referring to consumes about 75 percent of the total budget of the United States Federal government.
You want to double it? Then it would be consuming about 150 percent of the US Federal budget... where are you getting the extra money from? Mars?
You people need to grasp. You can't spend money that doesn't exist unless you want hyper inflate the system. At which point your money is worth NOTHING.
Your have the values of someone that lives in a banana republic... and deserves to live there. And if you keep it up, you'll get what you deserve.
Look at the earth ships. its a style of home being built in New Mexico by an eccentric architect.
The idea is that the house is entirely self contained. It provides its own power. Its own water. Its own heat. Totally grid independent. It recycles water four times within itself including black water... and can produce enough food for a family of four.
These things are only expensive because we rarely do them. But we have the technology. We can compartmentalize things. Decentralize.
The big problem is the cities. They cannot be ecologically balanced. Especially the big ultra urban cities. They're relics of a pre information age society. We don't need that kind of density any more. The ideal urban environment should be suburban. That allows enough space for people to self generate. Urban centers require massive centralization of resources which is inefficient.
If you can't think about the issue constructively and instead can only think of policies that involve putting guns in people's faces and saying you'll shoot them if they disobey... I think it is you that has nothing to contribute.
This is a complex issue involving too many countries and people to be dealt with by force.
If you want to get anywhere you need mutually beneficial or affordable options.
If you can only image very damaging solutions that are very expensive and require violence to enforce... you have no solution at all. None.
We picked our fields just fine for many generations before we had this illegal immigration issue. I really don't know what to tell people that are this intellectually blinded that they can't see how easy it would be go back to that.
What is more, crops are picked all over the world without mexican immigrants or their equivalent. How do they ever manage?
This is another issue I have with the illegal issue. This false sense of entitlement many Americans think they have. They see the illegal doing something and they think it is therefore beneath them to do that labor. You feel too superior apparently to do the work.
Why? Your ancestors did it gladly.
As to child labor... would you consider a young man mowing lawns over the summer to be a victim of child labor? Would you consider a young man with a paper delivery route to be a victim of child labor?
In farming communities for time out of mind when the harvest comes up farmers hire mostly young people in the community to harvest the crop. The pay isn't great but its not bad especially if your room and board are covered by your parents or family.
As to your comment about mexicans being physically suited for that labor... I believe you're just being racist now.
Slashdot Mirror
As to people not moving to countries to get welfare, there is actually enormous evidence that people do that all the time.
The most extreme example would be the EU where families will move from one country to the next as their welfare expires in that country. The EU rules allow for free movement throughout the EU. But the welfare is provided by the host country. Most of those countries have limits on the welfare. So what will happen is a family will go to country X, stay there for five or so... then the welfare runs out and they move to another country... and rinse and repeat.
As to being a thinly disguised racist, I am nothing of the kind. The US has the loosest immigration policy in the Americas and yet morons like yourself suggest we're racists for even having an immigration policy. Never mind that only natural born mexicans are allowed to own property within 50 miles of the coast in mexico. Never mind that I can't own a business in mexico unless I'm a citizen. Never mind a lot of other things the mexicans have done over the years to marginalize americans in Mexico.
And yet we're called the racists by fools like yourself.
You've no intellectual integrity. And as such your stupid insults carry no weight.
Yawn... okay... I'll just instantly win this argument.
What do things cost in the city versus what they cost in rural areas?
More or less?
Things in cities especially dense cities cost more then they cost pretty much anywhere else on earth.
Now you could say the income people earn is higher so people can just charge more. However, those sellers exist in a competitive market where they're constantly trying to out compete each other.
Market forces should drive the price down close to what it actually costs especially for plentiful goods supplied by many suppliers. Gasoline, potatoes, flour... whatever. And all of it is more expensive in cities.
If your logic about efficiency were accurate then the cost in cities should be lower and the denser the city the lower the costs should be... yet they're not.
The costs are higher.
Before you respond to this actually think the argument through a bit. Don't just grasp for the first straw to contract me but actually go through the economic and logistical logic a bit to construct a rational argument.
Cities are only efficient for people... not goods. They are a hold over from a time when travel and communication was so impractical that it was better to pack everyone into one place rather then try to coordinate things over a wider area.
However, today we have airplanes, cars, and the internet. We don't need these cities anymore.
The explosion of the Suburban sprawl was a direct result of the automobile. It made commuting possible.
Telecommuting remains problematical for many businesses that can't manage employees properly via remote. However, that is a managerial issue that will be dealt with over time mostly by business schools once they realize they need to teach prospective managers how to manage employees through the internet.
Cities as we know them especially cities like New York, London, and Chicago are unnecessary, inefficient, and really a hold over from a less sophisticated age.
We don't need them anymore.
I've been around for awhile, sir. I've listened to these things in as much detail as anyone. They've made a lot of bogus predictions.
Day after Tomorrow type bullshit. You want to claim they've got a clean record? Fine.
Then we go back to the politics and you can suck wind.
If you want to get anywhere on this issue you're going to have to put your horseshit away so we can have a real discussion. If all you've got for me is "this" then you're not having a scientific discussion. You're testing political strength versus political strength. That's not a fight you're doing well in at this point.
Here is the issue. You're forcing this stuff on people. That has failed. Internationally and domestically. The attempt to force it has failed.
So... your two options besides that are giving up or trying to actually convince people.
Those are your options.
I assume you're going to keep trying to force people... beat your head bloody on that wall if you want. But it accomplishes nothing.
That's only true the US needs labor.
We have a high unemployment rate right now so that line of reasoning is fucking retarded.
Think about it.
Per capita energy use must include the energy cost of all imported goods and services. When you factor that in cities can't possibly be using less energy.
That's just silly.
As to infrastructure, in rural areas most of it is provided locally as opposed to imported from a great distance. Water, food, and power tend to come from a close by source where as in cities it is brought in from a great distance.
Again, show me the research. I'm calling bullshit on this one.
So alarmists have been saying for over a hundred years.
They always say "in ten years..."... and then when that doesn't happen they just say it again... "in ten years..."...
The predictions and models have not accurately predicted what has actually happened. They're almost always wild exaggerations.
The politicians would call your bluff. You're not going to deport those people that got amensty. What is more, the federal government is already breaking federal law by not enforcing immigration law.
The problem is there is no "or else" clause in any of these laws that the politicians find PERSONALLY threatening so they have no reason to care about them.
Imagine if none of the laws you dealt with on a daily basis had an "or else" clause? Don't park in front of a fire hydrant... but if you we won't do anything. Don't run a red light... but if you do we'll just honk at you.
And that is a big part of the problem. The executive doesn't have to follow the law. They can just do whatever they want and all congress can do about it is sputter.
Its not a mistake. Its a political ploy that works.
Again, you're not getting anywhere on this issue unless you're willing to look very hard at your proposed solutions and make them reasonable.
In regards to evolution, I can assure you that if the eugenics movement were actually a threat, we'd have wide spread denial of evolution. Yes, I know there are evangelicals that deny it but I'm not talking about them. I'm saying upwards of 60-70 percent of the population would be against evolution if it were believed that something like eugenics were being justified by it.
That's just the politics. If you want people to be reasonable on the science you're going to have to not try to use the science to justify unacceptable policy.
Here is the central mistake you're making:
You're thinking "I have science on my side, I can win any argument and get people to do anything I want so long as I said SCIENCE".
Well it doesn't work that way. Science can be used to support a position but it does not instantly win any discussion on policy. And if you try to do that then everything you're doing will come under attack including the science.
Republicans still talk about it all the time.
Non-coercive policies that transform industries by replacing existing practices with more sustainable ones without punishing people or being so inflexible as to realize that in some cases there are not any other alternatives.
Here's my point. You can't force people to accept this... you're not strong enough to do it.
So any policy that relies upon you forcing people is unrealistic.
What you need are policies that people choose to follow without being force or that benefit them.
Wrong. My solutions are about getting people to WANT to do the right thing of making it in their interest to do the right thing. Which means wider adoption.
Your solutions require putting a gun to the head of billions of people and nation states that will not comply with your orders.
As such, your authoritarian model not only unethical but counter productive since you won't get compliance.
All you'll do is splutter and rant... pissing people off... and accomplishing nothing.
And because you refuse to listen to anyone its impossible to reason with you. You're just a deluded fanatic that doesn't understand the limitations of force.
No, I'm claiming that if the solution causes bigger problems then we shouldn't do it.
AGW is not the biggest problem we face in the world. Your ideas could cause wars and famine. We've seen nothing from AGW that implies that it will be worse then that.
Yes, there are issues in marginal societies but those societies are very sensitive and always have problems. What is more their problems are not destabilizing to global order.
Your ideas would put unbearable stresses on global diplomatic and trade systems.
You would get lots of countries that would not comply or would cheat the system. Then you'd put sanctions on those countries... then those countries and other complaint countries would find ways to cheat the sanctions... which would force countries to put additional pressure on other countries to actually impose proper sanctions or enforce existing ones that were reasonable. Then you'd get some countries that would leave the coalition... and it just wouldn't be sustainable.
Your idea assumes you actually can force people.
Consider this for one tiny moment.
What if you can't?
What if you can't force people?
What if you actually had to get them to comply by choice because you weren't strong enough to do anything else?
Did that ever occur to you? Or do you really think you can force the entire planet to obey your rules?
As to earth ships, they adapt the building style to the location. They've built them in jungles and deserts... they can build them anywhere. Part of the point of them is to have them harmonize with the local environment. So every one is built to fit its climate.
As to city dwellers being more efficient, I'd love to see the research on that because its obviously crap.
Many rural communities supply many of the things they use. They often provide their own meat, milk, produce, as well as other staples.
Cities import literally everything. Its pretty much impossible for that to be more sustainable.
I suspect that what they did to reach that number is they counted all the pollution in rural areas caused by producing goods for export and then didn't pass that pollution on to the cities when they imported. That's the same fallacy that many people believe in when they think the US has radically reduced its CO2 when what we've done in most cases is simply export our pollution to china. Its still our pollution if we import those goods.
I think we might say we need a better language. That said, the web is a riskier medium from a security stand point. I don't know if I want more powerful programs running at that level because you could as easily have worms written into the damned things.
I already use noscript on most sites to disable everything but HTML. I really don't want to put up with more of this stuff since most of just makes the site slower, delivers ads, tracks my movements on the internet, or attempts to throw pop ups all over the place.
I'd just assume have the coding on sites remain as simple as possible.
The carbon tax is a non starter.
Next idea.
You have a faster method of sequestering meaningful amounts of CO2 that does not cause further problems?
Someone suggested we release iron oxide powder into the oceans to cause algae blooms that will take carbon out of the atmosphere and sequester it at the sea floor... but that apparently will increase ocean acidity so...
What if your idea? all we can do is reduce our emissions. Anything else seems to either cause more problems or have political costs we can't afford.
That CO2 must be reduced is vague. How much does it have to be reduced. How quickly. What means are applied to do that. What punishments are employed to enforce the rules. What technological changes are employed to aid the effort.
The details matter.
I mean... I could promise to sit on the couch and drink beer and reduce my personal CO2 emissions which though irrelevant to global emissions would lower total CO2 emissions by an extremely tiny amount... So mission accomplished right? CO2 emissions reduced.
Obviously not. You need to flesh out your idea and the past ideas when fleshed out tended to be utterly unacceptable.
That is what you have to work on. Make the idea something that doesn't ruin people and we can probably sign off on it. If you're dead set on destroying people though it shouldn't come as any surprise that people are going to try to defend themselves.
I was thinking farm kids would do it as they did in the past. Those kids are White, Asian, and Hispanic. There aren't many Black farmers in the US.
Which is too bad. Concentrating themselves in urban slums has not been good for their culture, economic position, educational standing, or any of a thousand demographic stats.
It is not the responsibility of the United States to compensate for the failings of the Mexican government.
The Mexican government for more then a generation has off loaded the consequences of its corruption and incompetence on the United States. We have paid for it.
The United States should take steps to either prevent Mexico from doing this or compensate the United States proportionately for the cost.
Again... the proposed solutions are unacceptable and as such efforts are taken to frustrate the entire mechanism.
Lets say for example there were a eugenics movement in the US that proposed sterilizing people that were seen as inferior or something equally monstrous.
Wouldn't you then attack the scientific basis of eugenics? What if the supporters of the position made points that were scientifically valid? There is a cold logic in the idea that isn't wrong as far as science goes. But doesn't matter because its deeply immoral.
Likewise, the people opposing the AGW movement see the solutions as poison. And so will do pretty much anything to shut it down. That means attacking the foundation of the theory as well as the credibility of the scientists as well as the data as well as everything.
Everything is attacked because the solution is unacceptable and the process has never obeyed any notion of due process in regards to determining what should or shouldn't be done.
If you subject the whole process to something that will respect everyone's interests and ensure that the whole thing don't turn into a license to screw people then you'll find less opposition to AGW.
That sorry set up you're referring to consumes about 75 percent of the total budget of the United States Federal government.
You want to double it? Then it would be consuming about 150 percent of the US Federal budget... where are you getting the extra money from? Mars?
You people need to grasp. You can't spend money that doesn't exist unless you want hyper inflate the system. At which point your money is worth NOTHING.
Your have the values of someone that lives in a banana republic... and deserves to live there. And if you keep it up, you'll get what you deserve.
Look at the earth ships. its a style of home being built in New Mexico by an eccentric architect.
The idea is that the house is entirely self contained. It provides its own power. Its own water. Its own heat. Totally grid independent. It recycles water four times within itself including black water... and can produce enough food for a family of four.
These things are only expensive because we rarely do them. But we have the technology. We can compartmentalize things. Decentralize.
The big problem is the cities. They cannot be ecologically balanced. Especially the big ultra urban cities. They're relics of a pre information age society. We don't need that kind of density any more. The ideal urban environment should be suburban. That allows enough space for people to self generate. Urban centers require massive centralization of resources which is inefficient.
If you can't think about the issue constructively and instead can only think of policies that involve putting guns in people's faces and saying you'll shoot them if they disobey... I think it is you that has nothing to contribute.
This is a complex issue involving too many countries and people to be dealt with by force.
If you want to get anywhere you need mutually beneficial or affordable options.
If you can only image very damaging solutions that are very expensive and require violence to enforce... you have no solution at all. None.
Wrong. We are simply attempting to find a new equilibrium point.
Immigration is interfering with that.
We picked our fields just fine for many generations before we had this illegal immigration issue. I really don't know what to tell people that are this intellectually blinded that they can't see how easy it would be go back to that.
What is more, crops are picked all over the world without mexican immigrants or their equivalent. How do they ever manage?
This is another issue I have with the illegal issue. This false sense of entitlement many Americans think they have. They see the illegal doing something and they think it is therefore beneath them to do that labor. You feel too superior apparently to do the work.
Why? Your ancestors did it gladly.
As to child labor... would you consider a young man mowing lawns over the summer to be a victim of child labor? Would you consider a young man with a paper delivery route to be a victim of child labor?
In farming communities for time out of mind when the harvest comes up farmers hire mostly young people in the community to harvest the crop. The pay isn't great but its not bad especially if your room and board are covered by your parents or family.
As to your comment about mexicans being physically suited for that labor... I believe you're just being racist now.