| ▲ | exasperaited 3 days ago |
| It’s actually a terrible toxic idea that guarantees that anywhere beloved, prized, peaceful or beautiful becomes unaffordable as international jet setting tech people nurse a single cappuccino with their laptops in family-run cafés all around the world while driving up the price of property. The only way a country should approach digital nomads is to charge them massive flat fees and change the law to allow local planners to zone them out of most accommodation. |
|
| ▲ | kristoff200512 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| The arrival of digital nomads will not fundamentally drive up a country’s or a city’s housing prices, as they usually only rent. Renting has no direct impact on the development of local housing prices. On the contrary, the influx of digital nomads can actually increase the income of most low-cost countries, since they will inevitably spend money locally. |
| |
| ▲ | Ekaros 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Renting does have direct impact on housing prices. As the price landlords pay for units is based on rent they can get. If rent they can get goes up, so does the amount they are willing to pay. | |
| ▲ | baq 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | more renters than apartments/homes => rents go up => cap rate goes up => new home prices go up. it isn't instant obviously, but if the renters keep coming and new developments don't accelerate, prices will keep going up. see bay area for a market that keeps going up for two decades or whatever. | |
| ▲ | exasperaited 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Renting has no direct impact on the development of local housing prices. Ehh??? Sorry this is wholly untrue. Landlords get easy, often zero-deposit mortgages on houses and then let them out to make money. Of course this affects local house prices, because it absorbs housing stock. Particularly in long-established, geographically bounded, attractive European towns and cities where there is no possibility of growing the housing stock fast enough to compete. More to the point, the reason we know the arrival of digital nomads will drive up house prices is that they absolutely already have done, everywhere they have been courted. |
|
|
| ▲ | littlecranky67 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I am living in a Digital Nomad hotspot, and you are painting a dystopian picture that is not reality. Most DNs I know work either from Home or Coworking Spaces, which have sprawled up everywhere. You pay around 150-250€/month for your own desk.
There are also now "coworking cafés", that usually target DNs and Coworkers by charging a flat fee (i.e. 5€ a day) a give either a free coffee included, or 10%-20% rebate on drinks/food. These cafés are specifically setup for Laptops (i.e. single table layouts). Other cafés that had those "nursing people" simply put up signs disallowing laptops - which is at every café owners discretion to do so. In my experience, the local starbucks is crowded with tourists and their laptops (or tablets with keyboards), but these folks are not DNs, they are just waiting for their plane or airbnb to get ready. Regarding property price and high rent, this discussion is pretty stupid. Every country wants richer-than-average people to come and pay taxes and/or spend their money. I often hear the bogus argument that DNs don't pay taxes which is bullshit, because even DNs pay taxes indirectly, as every amout they spend is someone elses taxable income (this includes rent). If they don't come, those incomes won't exist and no taxes be paid. Most places in Europe bring in millions of poor immigrants, while some countries (most prominently spain) the people complain about rich immigrants... |
| |
| ▲ | leononame 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I live in what's not exactly a digital nomad hotspot, but they do come. You pay 150€/month for a coworking space in a city where some people pay 300-400€/month rent. These digital nomads come here, pay absurd amounts of rent without blinking an eye. And the tax thing is not a bogus argument. When people only pay taxes indirectly, they are tourists. Digital nomads pay _much_ less tax overall than other people, because people who pay income tax pay indirect taxes as well. If the digital nomads don't come, they also wouldn't raise rent and café prices for everyone around them. You come here, register yourself as a freelancer and pay income tax? You're very welcome in my book. But if you come to the country to leech off its cheap prices but don't pay income tax, you can go back where you came from. We bring in millions of poor immigrants for various reasons: It's the human thing to do, these immigrants do cheap and hard labor that a lot of natives won't do (think construction, food delivery, etc.) and as such even provide benefits to us. Digital Nomads mostly aren't immigrants. They come for a limited time, don't provide much to the local economy outside spending some money (and even then it's not that much because a lot of them come to cheap countries to live for cheap and save money) and then leave again. It's not really comparable. | | |
| ▲ | littlecranky67 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > When people only pay taxes indirectly, they are tourists. Digital nomads pay _much_ less tax overall than other people, because people who pay income tax pay indirect taxes as well Bad argument, as the alternative is the DN (just as the tourist) simply not coming to the island. If a DN spends 2000€ a month, that is 2000€ taxable income for someone else. If the DN doesn't come someone else makes 2000€ less of income. This does not compare to people living in the place, as they are there no matter what. Every cent of foreign money flowing into your economy ON TOP is a bonus. It is only bad if it removes someone else who would spend that money, but that is not the case. And if you would argue that the economy does not need more foreign money and you do not want productivity and wealth increase and have stay things as they are, you are advocating socalism - look at cuba, venezuela or argentina how that worked out. | | |
| ▲ | leononame 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Well, that only counts if you see the DN as a net positive. Similar to tourists, a lot of people see DN as a net negative because they spend some money, sure, but they also raise rent and hospitality prices. This can harm local communities and economies because it may benefit few people over many or change where people have to go live. Places relying on tourism as economic activity are very susceptible to economic crisis and it can even go as far as suppressing generation of jobs in other sectors and people leaving because you only find jobs in tourism or you can't afford to live in the city because Digital Nomads live there already. This is obviously exaggerated to make a point, but I think the point still stands in smaller scale. Foreign money flowing in does not need to be a bonus. DN have the potential to change the microeconomy and in ways that affect your macroeconomy much more than just money flowing in. Take a place like Barcelona, a famous example for people not being able to live there anymore due to high prices. On top of that, a lot of digital nomads don't interact much with local culture. When people start leaving, is the influx of DN money really still a net positive? Especially considering some of them don't even pay income tax? I don't want to demonize immigration, but people moving somewhere and treating it like a cheaper version of their hometown is not a positive in any way, culturally or economically. I am not arguing for socialism by saying that people coming and spending some money (not even that much) is not a sustainable way to do economy. I've got no problem with foreign investors building things that are actually valuable to the economy by building up industry, creating jobs or whatever. Cuba, Venezuela and Argentina have a whole lot of different problems and the reasons they are in the positions they are are much more nuanced than "socialism bad". | | |
| ▲ | littlecranky67 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Take a place like Barcelona, a famous example for people not being able to live there anymore due to high prices. I always hear this bullshit "People can't afford to live there anymore". That is complete nonsense, because unless there are deserted buildings and empty apartments, people DO live there and people CAN afford it. Just not you. | | |
| ▲ | leononame 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I feel like either you're really dense or you're misunderstanding me on purpose. It's exactly my point that mist people can't afford to live their because they're being priced out by foreigners. Most people native to such an area see that as a net negative, regardless of how much you want to dress it up as people coming and spending their money. | | |
| ▲ | littlecranky67 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I understand you perfectly clear, but to me you are spreading socialist ideas. If prices are high for a given scarce resource, it is because of high demand. Now you want to basically cut off demand (less foreigners, DNs) for prices to go down. But you do need the high price signal in order to create an incentive to create more of that resources. In the case of the EU (I'm a german EU citizen living in another EU state) we are all equal in terms of freedom of movement. There are no "locals" that have for some reasons more rights to any resources than anyone else. Giving "locals" preferential rights is completely unfair, as this would be excercising some kind of birth right. I myself getting priced out of vintage german sportscars myself, could we please cut the rights for non-germans to buy up those cars so I can afford one again? You can see how ridicioulous that would sound. | | |
| ▲ | leononame 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I think there's multiple things coming together. I'm in no way arguing to forbid immigration, I'm just pointing out that I don't think Digital Nomads are a net positive and that there are real economic consequences beyond "they spend money so it's good". I also specifically said I don't have a problem with anyone coming. You're welcome. I expect people that come to to a country to pay income tax there (as is usually required by law), but I'm in no way arguing to "cut off demand". Arguing that someone who would want to close borders and stop immigration (both of which policies I don't support at all, btw) is socialist is a bit far fetched. As I said, I welcome immigrants. Immigration brings with it a whole class of problems that need be addressed, but that doesn't mean it should be forbidden. And lastly, there's also a big difference between housing a vintage cars. One is an essential need, the other is not. You getting priced out of vintage cars, a luxury item, is not nearly as bad as you getting priced out of housing. That is a real problem that is actually happening in a lot of places, not some weird fantasy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | KronisLV 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > while driving up the price of property. So punish the people wanting to travel instead of the greed that leads to this? |
| |
