9 ms·

Can we please start calling this kind of visas for what it is? Rich people visas are cool, but don't help actual nomads as simply everywhere they exist they pu

Can we please start calling this kind of visas for what it is? 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).

shipscode 3y ago
$66k/yr = rich person?
- inductive_magic 3y ago
  Outside of the US? Absolutely. In Germany, you’re classified as rich starting at 60k gross income.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    Define classified? Nobody is going to build rich person wealth at 66
    - debesyla 3y ago
      Just a guess but if they mean anything like in Lithuania - higher taxes. (Here in Lithuania "rich" is earning more than 45k/year.)
      - jncfhnb 3y ago
        But… that can’t possibly scale does it? Like maybe you can live a very nice life not worrying about money and having good foods, but you’re not going to get to a place where you have much more than a house and a nest egg, right? The “rich” are just the old money folks with compounding wealth. Right? 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.
- pb060 3y ago
  It depends on where you live I guess, in my country (Italy) that's quite a high salary. Anyway "We hope the workcation visa will allow high-earning foreigners to stay in Korea's various regions and vitalize the local economy," doesn't sound as utopic as the title suggests.
- skrebbel 3y ago
  Yes?
- ZoomZoomZoom 3y ago
  Indisputably. 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.
  - soared 3y ago
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N US is ~$41k for an individual and this includes 14/15 year olds.
    - ZoomZoomZoom 3y ago
      Great, this supports my point. 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.
      - zmgsabst 3y ago
        Median household income is $74k/yr in the US. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-279.html 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”.
        ZoomZoomZoom 3y ago
        There's a couple of oversights in your argument. 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.
- johnfernow 3y ago
  If you're a single adult (which you probably are if you're interested in taking advantage of this program), $66k/year would mean you are richer than 99% of people on the planet, and your median income would be 20.2 times the global median. [1] 1. https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/how-rich-am-i?income=66000&countryCode=USA&numAdults=1&numChildren=0 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 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-third-of-the-size-of-american-homes-2017-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/ons-english-homes-are-a-thir... 4. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2023/12/06/international-travel/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2023/12/06/international-... 5. https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/10/18/the-average-american-households-discretionary-inco.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/10/18/the-averag... 6. https://infogram.com/discretionary_income_by_income_decile https://infogram.com/discretionary_income_by_income_decile
deadbabe 3y ago
If you’re a software engineer, which is a very common type of digital nomad, you should qualify instantly with that requirement.
- yungporko 3y ago
  if you're an american software engineer.
  - deadbabe 3y ago
    Well, yea. :D
  - myaccountonhn 3y ago
    Yeah with a European salary, you don’t meet the requirements.
    - fooker 3y ago
      You work less with more flexibility and benefits, you get half or so the salary — seems straightforward.
      - myaccountonhn 3y ago
        Well there are people questioning that a 66k/year salary is “rich”. They are delusional if they think it isn’t.
        fooker 3y ago
        Depends on where you live. 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.)
        myaccountonhn 3y ago
UweSchmidt 3y ago
Could you argue a little better who those "actual" nomads are that have no money and want to go to Korea and why they should be able to? I think you don't actually mean the literal nomads that still exist in Africa etc.? 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.
- ZoomZoomZoom 3y ago
  I can't really put up a quality argument with my personal example, as it gives away too much personal information, more than I'm comfortable with. 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.
  - UweSchmidt 3y ago
    To be fair, your personal example would likely not be a quality argument in any case, and you not qualifying for a program in another country wouldn't necessarily good or bad in itself. 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.
    - ZoomZoomZoom 3y ago
      > your personal example would likely not be a quality argument in any case 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.
gumballindie 3y ago
65k USD a year is not rich. Not even 250k.
huimang 3y ago
There are many visas for rich people, like Korea's investor visa (500m KRW - $386,182k). I don't see why any country needs to put in the work for a visa for people who don't have any money. 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.
make3 3y ago
66k USD is very achievable for ppl in the western world

shipscode 3y ago

$66k/yr = rich person?

inductive_magic 3y ago
Outside of the US? Absolutely. In Germany, you’re classified as rich starting at 60k gross income.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  Define classified? Nobody is going to build rich person wealth at 66
  - debesyla 3y ago
    Just a guess but if they mean anything like in Lithuania - higher taxes. (Here in Lithuania "rich" is earning more than 45k/year.)
    - jncfhnb 3y ago
      But… that can’t possibly scale does it? Like maybe you can live a very nice life not worrying about money and having good foods, but you’re not going to get to a place where you have much more than a house and a nest egg, right? The “rich” are just the old money folks with compounding wealth. Right? 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.
pb060 3y ago
It depends on where you live I guess, in my country (Italy) that's quite a high salary. Anyway "We hope the workcation visa will allow high-earning foreigners to stay in Korea's various regions and vitalize the local economy," doesn't sound as utopic as the title suggests.
skrebbel 3y ago
Yes?
ZoomZoomZoom 3y ago
Indisputably. 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.
- soared 3y ago
  https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N US is ~$41k for an individual and this includes 14/15 year olds.
  - ZoomZoomZoom 3y ago
    Great, this supports my point. 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.
    - zmgsabst 3y ago
      Median household income is $74k/yr in the US. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-279.html 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”.
      - ZoomZoomZoom 3y ago
        There's a couple of oversights in your argument. 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.
johnfernow 3y ago
If you're a single adult (which you probably are if you're interested in taking advantage of this program), $66k/year would mean you are richer than 99% of people on the planet, and your median income would be 20.2 times the global median. [1] 1. https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/how-rich-am-i?income=66000&countryCode=USA&numAdults=1&numChildren=0 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 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-third-of-the-size-of-american-homes-2017-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/ons-english-homes-are-a-thir... 4. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2023/12/06/international-travel/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2023/12/06/international-... 5. https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/10/18/the-average-american-households-discretionary-inco.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/10/18/the-averag... 6. https://infogram.com/discretionary_income_by_income_decile https://infogram.com/discretionary_income_by_income_decile

deadbabe 3y ago

If you’re a software engineer, which is a very common type of digital nomad, you should qualify instantly with that requirement.

yungporko 3y ago
if you're an american software engineer.
- deadbabe 3y ago
  Well, yea. :D
- myaccountonhn 3y ago
  Yeah with a European salary, you don’t meet the requirements.
  - fooker 3y ago
    You work less with more flexibility and benefits, you get half or so the salary — seems straightforward.
    - myaccountonhn 3y ago
      Well there are people questioning that a 66k/year salary is “rich”. They are delusional if they think it isn’t.
      - fooker 3y ago
        Depends on where you live. 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.)
        myaccountonhn 3y ago

UweSchmidt 3y ago

Could you argue a little better who those "actual" nomads are that have no money and want to go to Korea and why they should be able to? I think you don't actually mean the literal nomads that still exist in Africa etc.? 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.

ZoomZoomZoom 3y ago
I can't really put up a quality argument with my personal example, as it gives away too much personal information, more than I'm comfortable with. 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.
- UweSchmidt 3y ago
  To be fair, your personal example would likely not be a quality argument in any case, and you not qualifying for a program in another country wouldn't necessarily good or bad in itself. 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.
  - ZoomZoomZoom 3y ago
    > your personal example would likely not be a quality argument in any case 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.

gumballindie 3y ago

65k USD a year is not rich. Not even 250k.

huimang 3y ago

There are many visas for rich people, like Korea's investor visa (500m KRW - $386,182k). I don't see why any country needs to put in the work for a visa for people who don't have any money. 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.

make3 3y ago

66k USD is very achievable for ppl in the western world