3 ms·

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 actua

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.

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.