I don't think there is any significant difference with a digital nomad and a tourist. So separating them and blaming the other for issues seems weird. The myths blame nomads while the author blames tourists.
I want to visit a number of countries and literally just wander each country over the course of 6 months to a year but I can't legally work there for my employer while doing so. I'd easily have the money to support myself and pay taxes but I can't keep my job and do this legally in almost any country.
Of course the vast majority don't bother with the legality, knowing that they're just dicking around on a laptop and unlikely to be noticed or fined.
Simple, force all landlords that have short term rentals to pass along tourist taxes like hotels already do.
The issue is with all of the illegal AirBnbs.
Usually having a work visa implies that you are working for a local company.
I lived 3 years in Eastern Europe, technically working for a foreign company, which invoiced local companies (so I made pretty low pay). Every 30 days I had to go to the border and exit/re-enter the country for a new tourist visa stamp (eventually they made it max 30 days in a window of 90 days).
It also works for the US, but the border control can get suspicious if we cross the border too often.
Of course, if employers accept to have employees in a given country is another story (liability/jurisdiction).
anecdotal as an English teacher turned programmer who lived in CDMX 2014-2017 (before large influx of digital nomads and then waves of COVID tourists)
Just totally cringing watching my mexican dj friends in CDMX complain about all the gringo tourists ruining everything in cuauhtemoc/roma norte but then posting instagram stories " hey looking for booking in USA/Germany/etc for November or December, also subletting my apartment" (also posting it in English).. It's like living in a Beverly Hills mansion and getting angry at the rich Chinese tourists spending money on Rodeo drive for two weeks.
One could argue 6 tourists each staying 2 weeks concecutively will spend more than a nomad, since they dont spend time working. So in this case the nomad would be worse, since he still takes similar real estate to host, but provides less to the economy.
Either way I think it's more useful to consider them together with tourists. Many backpackers are probably indistinguishable from nomads.
The differences between a DN and a tourist are:
1) The DN spends many months or years on the road, such that the nexus of their personal affairs stops being their home country, residency becomes an issue they have to think about, etc. - this doesn't happen with a tourist
2) The DN's primary income generating activities continue during this period, such that the labor laws of the countries they visit become an issue they have to think about -- again doesn't happen with a tourist
I agree that if someone takes a 3 month holiday and works on their laptop during it, they're a tourist. We don't need to use DN to describe those people, they are not really practicing long term travel as Potts described it. The term more accurately describes the growing number of people who are going to another level and really disconnecting from their home country.
DNs in this sense spend a lot of money in the countries they visit - it varies widely based on their income and how much of the year they spend traveling, but most of them spend somewhere between $20K-$200K/yr. Even on the low end this is way more money than most tourists spend.
They unfortunately jack up the prices way beyond the financial power of the locals, cause gentrification and push the locals out.
That's what nomadism does - bring in to neighborhoods people who are relatively far richer than the locals.
> digital nomads, and even expats are barely a drop in the bucket
Sorry, but nomads and expats are a major source of complaint in the locales they flood, and many of them are also aware of it and they complain about it.