5 ms·

If you're open to it I feel like the sweet spot right now, specially for Spanish speakers, is to work remotely from somewhere in LATAM, earning in dollars or eu

If you're open to it I feel like the sweet spot right now, specially for Spanish speakers, is to work remotely from somewhere in LATAM, earning in dollars or euros and spending in local currency.

throw_nbvc1234 3y ago
"inequality is bad for you so go move someplace where you can contribute to making inequality even worse for the locals"
- totallywrong 3y ago
  How is it bad to bring foreign money into a country and spend it on the local economy?
  - howLongHowLong 3y ago
    For one, because if there are enough people to pay higher prices, the market will reflect that and the locals will have to deal with the new costs despite the fact that there are no local jobs paying enough to afford these things. So yeah for people who are already merchants (likely a minority) it's great; everyone else gets poorer. Thus, inequality increases. This is already playing out in US cities.
    - totallywrong 3y ago
      I won't pretend to know about this stuff. What I can tell you is that, since covid and the advent of remote work, so many countries have been rushing to launch some sort of "digital nomad" visa, precisely to attract this new type of worker. So clearly they've determined the model to be a net positive for the economy.
      - nmeta 3y ago
        I cannot pretend to have an adequate breadth of geopolitical knowledge on this topic nor an understanding of the underlying reasons behind the various governments and the advent more recent "nomad visas". However my knee-jerk reaction is that, the various programs governments will incentivize regarding foreign investment and relocation are not necessarily in the best economic or social interests of the locals for a given area, despite that governments intent. One story I recall from earlier this year was regarding Lisbon and the backlash against their visa [1]. From the article it's obvious there were other (tax) incentives that existed prior to the nomad visa, however it appears to me that the visa was a turning point in public discourse on the topic, as it incentivized highly paid individuals to relocate to Lisbon (4x the average Portuguese salary). Though I don't disagree that it could still have been weighed by the government and determined it to be a net-positive still. [1] : https://www.politico.eu/article/portugal-digital-nomads-bubble-gentrification/ https://www.politico.eu/article/portugal-digital-nomads-bubb...
        totallywrong 3y ago
        Portugal has been handing out extremely desirable EU residency to very wealthy people for more than 10 years, in exchange of real estate investment. I don't blame them, together with Greece they were the hardest hit by the last global crisis. But of course that was going to noticeably drive prices up. A lot (most?) of those investments are now airbnbs which is the real problem they have. I don't think this can be compared with the recent wave of nomad visas that are little more than extended tourist permits.
      - vpastore 3y ago
        [dead]
    - np- 3y ago
      If foreign money decides to entirely stop spending in developing economies and only spends money in developed economies, it seems like the outcome would be even worse. As in, developing economies will never develop and developed economies will continue to hoard all the wealth.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      If they're spending money into a local economy, that means the money is flowing into the local economy. > merchants hire a whole panoply of people as their business increases.
  - milesvp 3y ago
    Classic history lesson is mensa musa, who was so wealthy (at least in terms of gold), wherever he travelled inflation followed in his wake. That said, I’m not sure there is much literature on the negative economic side of tourism, or work tourism specifically. My suspicion, is that while it tends to create inflationary pressure, it still increases local wealth generally, and rarely are there very extreme negative situations (like locals who live in regions that can grow quinoa that can no longer afford it resulting in serious nutrition issues).
  - acegas 3y ago
    You drive up housing costs
angarg12 3y ago
I lived in 5 countries in 10 years, and I'm not up for geo-arbitrage to scrap a few more dollars in my income. If I got a global remote job, rather than moving halfway across the world, I rather move close to my family and friends. Plus, some countries in LATAM have the same issues we dislike about the US but magnified (e.g. inequality).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- totallywrong 3y ago
  It's not geo-arbitrage, the extra income is a side benefit. For me personally, I'm happier in these parts, and I too lived in very many places. I enjoy the slower pace of life, greater sense of community, and lesser individualism. Living in the West today feels like constant competition. But of course it's far from perfect and not for everyone.

If you're open to it I feel like the sweet spot right now, specially for Spanish speakers, is to work remotely from somewhere in LATAM, earning in dollars or euros and spending in local currency.

throw_nbvc1234 3y ago

"inequality is bad for you so go move someplace where you can contribute to making inequality even worse for the locals"

totallywrong 3y ago
How is it bad to bring foreign money into a country and spend it on the local economy?
- howLongHowLong 3y ago
  For one, because if there are enough people to pay higher prices, the market will reflect that and the locals will have to deal with the new costs despite the fact that there are no local jobs paying enough to afford these things. So yeah for people who are already merchants (likely a minority) it's great; everyone else gets poorer. Thus, inequality increases. This is already playing out in US cities.
  - totallywrong 3y ago
    I won't pretend to know about this stuff. What I can tell you is that, since covid and the advent of remote work, so many countries have been rushing to launch some sort of "digital nomad" visa, precisely to attract this new type of worker. So clearly they've determined the model to be a net positive for the economy.
    - nmeta 3y ago
      I cannot pretend to have an adequate breadth of geopolitical knowledge on this topic nor an understanding of the underlying reasons behind the various governments and the advent more recent "nomad visas". However my knee-jerk reaction is that, the various programs governments will incentivize regarding foreign investment and relocation are not necessarily in the best economic or social interests of the locals for a given area, despite that governments intent. One story I recall from earlier this year was regarding Lisbon and the backlash against their visa [1]. From the article it's obvious there were other (tax) incentives that existed prior to the nomad visa, however it appears to me that the visa was a turning point in public discourse on the topic, as it incentivized highly paid individuals to relocate to Lisbon (4x the average Portuguese salary). Though I don't disagree that it could still have been weighed by the government and determined it to be a net-positive still. [1] : https://www.politico.eu/article/portugal-digital-nomads-bubble-gentrification/ https://www.politico.eu/article/portugal-digital-nomads-bubb...
      - totallywrong 3y ago
        Portugal has been handing out extremely desirable EU residency to very wealthy people for more than 10 years, in exchange of real estate investment. I don't blame them, together with Greece they were the hardest hit by the last global crisis. But of course that was going to noticeably drive prices up. A lot (most?) of those investments are now airbnbs which is the real problem they have. I don't think this can be compared with the recent wave of nomad visas that are little more than extended tourist permits.
    - vpastore 3y ago
      [dead]
  - np- 3y ago
    If foreign money decides to entirely stop spending in developing economies and only spends money in developed economies, it seems like the outcome would be even worse. As in, developing economies will never develop and developed economies will continue to hoard all the wealth.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    If they're spending money into a local economy, that means the money is flowing into the local economy. > merchants hire a whole panoply of people as their business increases.
- milesvp 3y ago
  Classic history lesson is mensa musa, who was so wealthy (at least in terms of gold), wherever he travelled inflation followed in his wake. That said, I’m not sure there is much literature on the negative economic side of tourism, or work tourism specifically. My suspicion, is that while it tends to create inflationary pressure, it still increases local wealth generally, and rarely are there very extreme negative situations (like locals who live in regions that can grow quinoa that can no longer afford it resulting in serious nutrition issues).
- acegas 3y ago
  You drive up housing costs

angarg12 3y ago

I lived in 5 countries in 10 years, and I'm not up for geo-arbitrage to scrap a few more dollars in my income. If I got a global remote job, rather than moving halfway across the world, I rather move close to my family and friends. Plus, some countries in LATAM have the same issues we dislike about the US but magnified (e.g. inequality).

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
totallywrong 3y ago
It's not geo-arbitrage, the extra income is a side benefit. For me personally, I'm happier in these parts, and I too lived in very many places. I enjoy the slower pace of life, greater sense of community, and lesser individualism. Living in the West today feels like constant competition. But of course it's far from perfect and not for everyone.