Rich people visas are cool, but don't help actual nomads as simply everywhere they exist they put up a prohibitively high threshold on an income (that you can't even prove documentary half the time).
As I understand it, the whole point of these schemes is to collect money from people who do have it, instead of losing it to the guys who simply do remote work on the "tourist" visa.
If you can argue well, an appeal to a "we" and to a specific use of language in an online forum won't be necessary.
But let's say, if the country of my current residence had the same program with the same threshold, I would most likely not qualify (or just barely) and I surely wouldn't have any means of proving it. However, my financial situation† allows for pretty comfortable living (for more than one person), at least by the local standards.
I think I qualify for the label in question. All my work is done digitally and remotely, and I'm out of my country of origin (although not 100% by choice).
†: Not including the savings.
A strong argument should not only, as it is customary in modern times, to look at the advantages and the interest of the individual, but also consider the benefit of the commons, in this case the the country that (hopefully) designed their digital nomad program to the benefit of its population. It is their responsibility to attract and reject people accordingly.
Uh, thanks?
> in this case the the country that (hopefully) designed their digital nomad program to the benefit of its population
Well, I can agree and just note that this is orthogonal to the issue I'm raising: It's a rich people visa and as such is not helpful to many people who objectively qualify for a "digital nomad" moniker, so there's a mismatch between the name and the function.
You would not be able to buy a house, support a family, have some hobbies, with a 66k/year salary in most of the major cities of the world nowadays.
(You could buy a house with a 30 year mortgage sure, but does not exactly scream rich.)
Uh I can think of quite a few where you would. Just on the top of my mind: Lisbon, Mexico City, Milano, Saigon,Bangalore, Madrid, I mean I can go on for quite a while. But sure, you’d struggle in Zurich, Monaco, London, Silicon Valley or Singapore, IE some of the most expensive places in the world.
> You would not be able to buy a house, support a family, have some hobbies, with a 66k/year salary in most of the major cities of the world nowadays.
Someone who can work fully remote globally with a 66k year salary will def. not be short of places where they can live extremely comfortably. Since we are talking about digital nomads, who can work from everywhere, I do think they constitute as very very rich in this context. When we think of those who would be able to apply for a digital nomad visa, in a global context, would be only those who are in the global top 1%.
You’d have to struggle to buy a house with a 66k USD equivalent income in these places unless you are okay with living far away from your workplace.
Doesn’t seem very rich.
Purchasing power is what matters. Much less purchasing power today than people did in the 1950s (when a working class man could support a wife and children on his salary alone) and even boomers.
$66k certainly isn't poverty, even in a place like NYC or SF, but it is not rich.
This is officially “low income” in my area, and I think it qualifies someone for low income housing.
For reference, I’m in California, but not in or near a big city.
Just ask any random non-white engineer working in UAE, China, and Japan. People are getting Western European passports and working in Dubai to receive first-class treatment.
Nobody is going to build rich person wealth at 66
In the states, ignoring California insanity, it feels like if you can land a $200k+ job you’ll have something that feels sort of rich by the end but just barely. And that’a going to be around a top 5th percentile income for most areas.
The highest median income of all countries (Luxembourg) is about half that, give or take. The median income on Earth is somewhere around 5k, I think.
US is ~$41k for an individual and this includes 14/15 year olds.
You can count income in many ways and the data here is probably fresher than what I could find in a half-minute search. USA is just right after the Luxembourg and the number is still just 62% of the 66k mentioned above.
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-27...
I don’t think “both people have to work, to be average” counts as “rich”.
1. I can bet an average household in the US is > 2 people (google says 3.13). The threshold in question is for personal income.
2. The context of the whole discussion is global, so comparisons made from a perspective of a citizen of one of the richest countries in the world don't really fly.
1. https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/how-rich-am-i?income=66000&c...
So yes, by global standards, $66k/year would mean you are extremely rich. It's even quite a bit higher than the median adult income in developed countries. At $66k/year, you're making about double the average German working adult, and over triple the average Japanese working adult. [2]
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income
I think people often don't understand the grand scale of difference between the developing and the developed world. Yes, there is a cost of living adjustment, and certain things are cheaper abroad (though many things, such as electronics, are more expensive), but people really do consume a ton more in the rich world. Most people don't have cars, and most people live in far smaller homes. Even Europeans live in far smaller homes than Americans: the average new English home is 1/3 the size of the average American home. [3] People in developing countries also travel a lot less. Only 3% of Indians have traveled abroad, vs. 76% of Americans. [4]
The discretionary income, defined as "all the money you have left after paying for taxes and your absolute needs", that most Americans have (all but the lowest 3 deciles) would be extremely enviable by most people worldwide. [5, 6]
3. https://www.businessinsider.com/ons-english-homes-are-a-thir...
4. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2023/12/06/international-...
5. https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/10/18/the-averag...
6. https://infogram.com/discretionary_income_by_income_decile