Seems but isn't due to the way taxation/jurisdiction/licensure works. Where you are doing your work from and where the benefactor of that work are make a big difference. Example: Doctors can't telehealth over State lines. Lawyers likewise. Employers aren't supposed to allow migrant workers to work from across state lines from their address of record.

A great deal of draconian control is actually implemented through employment and licensure law, and as with most things in real life, come bundled with a surprising amount of detail. Part of why I've become particularly dissatisfied with the U.S. as of late, as so much of it is predicated on actually keeping you locked into one geographical location.

Doctors can definitely telehealth through state lines, they only need to get license approval from the specific states.

> so much of it is predicated on actually keeping you locked ino one geographical location.

Most of the digital nomad hubs have the same laws with regards to worker protections and tax residency; they're just too poor to enforce them. The same is true of the workers themselves. In the 2010s I remember seeing a lot of guys bragging about having virtual assistants in the Philippines. This was probably illegal on both sides of the transaction the way that they had it set up, the issue is that the people working these jobs do not have the resources to pursue a case against a US-based employer; that's assuming they have the knowledge and motivation necessary to sue the employer in the first place. I'm not as libertarian as I once was, but these kinds of arrangements are a no-brainer; it's all of the upside of the free movement of labor with none of the downside of that labor being physically relocated.