Digital nomads are already the future

Can digital nomads contribute to the communities they live in?

This article is a direct response to Digital Nomads Are Not the Future, by Paris Marx.

I’m a digital nomad and spend much of my year in Bali.

I spent six years in a corporate tech career, before launching my content marketing business. So I fit the privileged stereotype he’s critiquing.

From experience, most digital nomads are aware of the issues raised by Paris, regarding the inherent privilege of our lifestyle.

And most of us are keen to explore ways in which our fledgling movement can evolve and benefit and include a wider range of people.

And it already is — although far more must be done.

An essential difference of perspective, is that I believe ‘privilege’ is something we should be aware of in our thinking; whereas Paris — and the modern Left — seem to think ‘privilege’ is a metric by which we decide whether someone is entitled to feel unhappy and/or motivated to improve their position in life.

Digital nomadism is a great lifestyle, which has helped many people to become healthier, happier and more fulfilled. Including me. But it’s important that we shape this young movement into a model that’s inclusive and contributes to the social and economic frameworks of the countries in which we base ourselves.

And I’ve already seen this happening, for example, with events at co-working spaces for Indonesian teenagers — teaching them useful skills and sharing experiences from Indonesian entrepreneurs.

But government recognition of this new and growing lifestyle is essential, if we’re going to really leverage its capacity to include and develop local communities.

We need a formal way to pay taxes in the countries where we live/work; to get short-term work visas; and to quickly and legally launch and build businesses with the local friends we make in these countries.

Good and socially-beneficial local projects often don’t launch, because of legislative barriers.

Closer relationships and deeper understanding and exchange between people around the planet is an inherently positive thing. But it’s right to be concerned about the shape in which this develops — and to ensure that everyone benefits.

My key points of difference with Paris are that I believe:

Digital nomadism is a fundamental expression of freedom. Digital nomadism is a cultural and technological inevitability. Digital nomadism is fluid. We can shape its development, using sensible policies. Everyone has the right to improve their life each day — including multi-millionaires. Modern corporate life should be aggressively challenged for the damage that it’s doing to the psychological and physical health of millions of Westerners. Progress is progress. And halting progress for those at the top does not help those at the bottom. When developing nations look to the West for models on progress, that increases the impetus on us to make sure we’re doing it in a way that makes us happy. We shouldn’t blindly promote our own unhealthy lifestyles.

However, I welcome Paris asking these important questions and kicking-off what I hope will be a constructive debate.

That said, his ambiguous demand that ‘nomads have no place in the future’ leaves questions as to whether he is advocating the banning of laptops, the internet, travel, or free enterprise?

But here we go!

Are any political movements critiquing modern corporate life?

‘Reverse culture shock’ is a strange experience.

I’m back in the UK for summer after 16 months abroad, and I’m less overwhelmed by the in-your-face consumerism and copy/paste shop frontages of UK towns than when I first arrived.

But what I’m still not used to, is how little most British people question the very specific lifestyle that we’re encouraged to embrace — despite the damage it’s doing to us.

Modern office jobs are oppressive.

A recent Stanford Business book, ‘The Workplace Is Killing People and Nobody Cares’, highlights:

Perhaps 75% of disease in the United States is chronic (EG. diabetes and cardiovascular and circulatory disease).

Literature suggests that stress causes conditions including diabetes, cardiovascular disease and metabolic syndrome; plus behaviours like overeating, under-exercising and drug and alcohol abuse.

Data suggests the workplace is the single biggest source of stress.

The author, Jeffrey Pfeffer (a professor of organizational behavior at Stanford Graduate School of Business) highlights a powerful story:

Robert Chapman, CEO of Barry-Wehmiller, stood in front of 1,000 other CEOs and said, ‘You are the cause of the health-care crisis.’

If you place the reduction of human suffering as part of your ideological and/or ethical values, then — logically — changing the way that people in the West are expected to work should appeal to you.

But in my own direct experience, the oppression that corporate workplaces thrust upon employees isn’t challenged, for two main reasons:

A prevailing pseudo-macho culture at big corporations, which plays on the susceptibility of young people (especially males) to peer pressure; convincing them it’s ‘tough’ to work long, horrible hours and to become ill, without complaining. An awareness of severe oppression around the world, which we’re encouraged to believe somehow diminish our own experiences and struggles — often packaged and dismissed as ‘first world problems’ (one of my least favourite phrases, ever).

It’s interesting that the pseudo-macho culture is perpetuated by social conservatives; whereas the ‘First World Problems’ mantra and denial of anyone on a salary above $50k/annum to have any right to be unhappy is pushed by the modern Left.

And yet, both of these — ostensibly — ideologically-opposed forces combine to defend the prevailing machinery of modern corporatism — which is exploiting and ruining the lives of millions, across the West.

It’s also interesting that the modern Left seem to suggest that compassion is finite. That we either cannot or should not be able to feel compassion for an office worker trapped in commuter and finance-package hell; as well as the plight of the Rohingya in Myanmar — even though, obviously, the two are not remotely comparable.

Yet both suffer — and both deserve better.

And if we subscribe to the idea of elevating those in developing countries to our standard of living, shouldn’t we also question whether there’s a happier, healthier way of living, at the same time?

Someone who wants to challenge the status quo of working for a big company, getting a mortgage, getting a car on finance, and quickly having two-point-four kids and a dog will struggle to find any friends in any major political party or movement; including the UK’s Labour Party or America’s Democrats — neither of which differ from conservatives on these very traditional lifestyle expectations.

From experience, ‘I run an online business and live anywhere’ is a great way to upset whole dinner tables, across the political spectrum.

Apparently, I am both a lazy hippy and a calculating, exploitative businessman. Neat.

What is digital nomadism?

Digital nomadism isn’t a state; it’s the absence of a state.

Or is it? This is an existential question for the nomad movement.

On the face of it, we have to undertake significant effort and create an online business, with integrated payment systems and a legal structure for a hapless accountant to decipher, in order to generate sufficient cash to live and work remotely.

Flip-side, is that I’d expect a committed anti-capitalist to critique the fact that we’re all encouraged to think about ‘earning money’ exclusively through the lens of enslaving ourselves to someone else’s company a little more closely.

(Remember, every company founder once laughed at the idea of working for someone else a day longer, flipped the bird and walked out.)

It’s ironic that Western university campuses are turning out graduates who fiercely advocate critique of oppressive multi-nationals — then complain that it’s very hard to get a corporate job and a mortgage on a white-picket house, just like the one next door.

I can’t think of anything more punk-rock and counter-culture than setting up a profitable online business, then flipping-off ‘the man’ and anyone who says you have to wear a suit, polish your shoes, have a smart haircut and turn-up at 9am each day to watch hours drift by, while shuffling papers.

I live to ride off into the sunset, with my business in a laptop in my rucksack.

Maybe I’m just behind the times. Perhaps it’s rebellious to follow social conventions now?

Anyway, I’m digressing from the helpful stuff.

The fact is that we’re trained to work for big companies from a very young age.

And as Jack Ma, the CEO of AliBaba has noted, this poses a big problem — as the repetitive, memory-retention style of learning that schools still lean towards is only going to become less useful, as machine-learning and AI blow humans out of the water on these kinds of tasks.

From the youngest age, the idea of working in an office was a bizarre, abstract idea. It was obvious to me that life was simply about walking out into the world with a backpack and exploring and discovering new places and people.

Could anyone define a clearer, purer form of freedom than the ability to wander?

And it’s strange to be aged 32, finally enjoying this simple and healthy lifestyle — after a Herculean effort, which involved ignoring the cynical recommendations of a LOT of people.

Being sensible could kill you.

Me and school didn’t get on too well. Primary school and university were the only two educational establishments I wasn’t thrown out of.

Fortunately, I loved sports and debate. So that got me through.

Shortly before graduating, in 2009, I realised it was probably time to deal with ‘reality’, so asked the Lonely Planet forum, ‘How do you balance a career and travelling?’.

The responses reached eight pages over three years, with the glum conclusion that your life would suck in one way or another — with either crap pay or a dull, repetitive existence.

Digital nomadism wasn’t mentioned — because in 2009 it barely existed.

‘Digital nomad’ search popularity on Google Trends

So, I decided to be sensible. I shaved off my mohawk, took my piercings out and got a well-paid job in technology sales.

It nearly killed me.

I arrived in my late twenties, 30kg overweight, borderline alcoholic and severely depressed — despite having a beautiful apartment, powerful BMW and a healthy salary and international travel that most people would envy.

I was the ‘fat man with a red BMW’ that Tim Ferriss talks about. Except my BMW was silver.

My apartment felt like a prison. My alarm clock was a jailer, knocking on my door.

(FYI, I have ADHD — so YMMV.)

I said to my therapist, ‘This probably sounds like first world problems’.

He looked at me strangely and said, quizzically but firmly, ‘But we live in the first world?’.

To this day, he may not know how empowering his words were.

I can only imagine from Paris Max’s position on digital nomadism and privilege, that he might describe the expensive therapy I received — which lead to me being able to take action and become fit, healthy and empowered again, as ‘privilege’.

Either way, the way ‘privilege’ is treated by the modern Left is a serious obstacle to progress.

It’s inevitable that privileged, wealthy people will be the first to enjoy most social and technological benefits. And It’s difficult to imagine an economic system in which this wouldn’t be the case.

Even if we remove private property ownership, there is still the huge privilege for children born to high IQ parents (genetic factors explain around 50% of differences between individuals) and for children born into homes with more books in their home (who are more likely to achieve higher levels of education).

Inequality isn’t just a fact of economics; it’s a fact of reality.

And so the most useful question that we can ask, is ‘How can we improve living standards and opportunities for everyone — especially those at the bottom?’.

Is digital nomadism for everyone?

Paris is absolutely right to critique this question.

I have beef with digital nomads who romanticise our lifestyle and pretend it’s easy. In truth, I work much longer hours and do substantially more challenging work than at any point in my corporate career.

However, I’m able to counter it, because I can experience a deep level of calm by disappearing into nature whenever I like; having adventure-sports on-tap; and being free to schedule my work/play to my preference.

Especially as I’m surrounded by fellow nomads, who are committed to building a healthy work/life balance. And — in particular — as I have the prospect of automating my business so I can spend LESS time working in the future, in addition to earning more cash (a goal few office workers can dream of).

My fitness, well-being and productivity are on a level I’ve never experienced.

However, getting here wasn’t easy.

Despite having a senior international sales position, I had to learn a lot of new skills in order to work remotely. I walked away from a six-figure career in Sydney, to work on a building site for six months (minimal intellectual distraction) while learning about SEO, before I got my first big client.

But this goes back to the earlier point about education — and about the importance of teaching children to build a lifestyle that they will enjoy; rather than signing-up to a career that sounds impressive, or which pleases their parents or teacher.

We need to make digital nomadism more accessible to people across the world, including developing countries. Banning or stigmatising digital nomadism isn’t the answer to addressing the low levels of social inclusion that bother both me and Paris.

And for the record, I couldn’t agree more strongly with Paris, about how predatory some digital nomad ‘life coaches’ are, when it comes to trying to sell information-light ‘Become a digital nomad’ eBooks, which suggest we lie around working on the beach all day.

Seriously, do you think I want sand in my MacBook?

Can digital nomadism help local communities?

Yes, digital nomadism can help local communities. And it must.

I’ve seen first-hand the transference of digital skills from European digital nomads, to local people in the countries where we work.

Our co-working space runs dedicated events for young Indonesians — promoting skills and stories of successful entrepreneurship. And we offer significant discounts for local residents who want to use our co-working space.

Most importantly of all, are the friendships that we develop. Our social groups include English, Indonesian, American, Italian, Chinese, Canadian, Singaporean and Thai people etc, engaging as friends, on a level playing field and sharing experiences, ideas and knowledge. And Bintags!

I’m well-informed about the next steps at co-working spaces, which are heavily centred around education, and in transforming these communities into places for people to learn useful skills — both on-site and remotely, using the internet.

A co-working space is increasingly becoming a place to figure out what you’re doing with your life and to get help launching your new idea; rather than just a place to work.

Inspiring stuff. By any measure.

Internet speeds in countries like Bali have also improved significantly in recent years. Co-working spaces have the fastest speeds on the island and it seems likely they will have helped drive forward improvements in infrastructure, at least locally.

However, the discussion around economic contribution is important.

Most nomads that I know would like to contribute more to the local communities in which we work. After all, what better experience for developing cultural awareness and improving your understanding of inequality, than living in a developing country?

Unfortunately, governments have nomads in a tricky spot, with a general failure to recognise that humans today are global. We have no reason not to travel, explore and live anywhere we like.

I suspect that the countries which create intelligent incentives for digital nomad to legally work, pay tax and even base their businesses within their borders will benefit the most from our growing movement.

And developing nations have the most to gain.

For example, Estonia is one of the first countries to recognise digital nomadism and offer both an e-Residency and an upcoming digital nomad visa — which will probably allow a holder to legally reside in Estonia for 365 days, and include entitlement to a Schengen visa, which allows them to visit EU for up to 90 days.

Karoli Hindriks, the CEO of Jobbatical, approached Estonia’s government, with the argument that the main barrier to entry for tech workers entering was attaining a work visa.

‘I can’t predict the future but my gut feeling is that one thing is clear. There is a talent shortage in most of the countries in the world and the countries who will excel economically in the future are the ones who are adapting to this. The ones who figure out how to bring people in, instead of building walls.’

Hindrinks goes on to suggest that packages for public services like healthcare could be sold to visitors — which sounds like an intelligent and potentially profitable solution.

Meanwhile, It should be noted that the UK’s Prime Minister, Theresa May, believes, ‘citizens of the world are citizens of nowhere’ — solidifying her as the most out-of-touch, uninformed, and irrelevant prime minister in modern UK history (in context of her opposition to legalisation of drugs and general cynicism towards civil liberties and personal freedom).

So, I find it interesting that the typically open-borders modern Left aren’t more excited about a movement that could free humans from the social shackles of corporate life and the potential divisions that nationality, ethnicity and religion can cause.

What does digital nomadism look like?

The irony, is that a Left-leaning, no-borders advocate would struggle to find a more inclusive environment than a digital nomad co-working space.

Yes, of course there’s a bar to entry, in the sense of having to get a plane ticket and some kind of online income (or savings) in order to visit. But the same is true of almost any location beyond our own local area.

And the beauty of working in a warm, developing country, is that there’s little room for snobbery or prejudice.

Even if someone earns six-figures, it makes zero sense to wear anything other than the board-shorts, flip-flops and t-shirts we all wear. You can’t rent a car, so almost everyone rides the same battered scooters (OK, there’s a few nice motorbikes!).

I know people earning multiple six-figures; and I know people earning far less than $1,000/month. And we all hang-out together at the beach, drink the same beers and share ideas and good times.

Every social environment has its own value system.

And the digital nomad scene is ideas-centric.

In the conservative rural area that I grew up, we’d be asked, ‘Who are your parents?’, ‘What job do they have?’, ‘What car do you drive’?

VALUE SYSTEM: Economic status

In Cambridge, where I spent my teenage years, there’s less materialism — but a soft intellectual snobbery. Questions like, ‘Which political views do you hold?’, ‘Which college do you go to?’, ‘Aren’t Brexiteers horrible?’.

VALUE SYSTEM: Having ‘acceptable’ (centre-Left) political views.

In nomad hotspots, you’re usually asked, ‘What are you working on?’, ‘What ideas do you have?’, ‘What are you trying to build?’.

VALUE SYSTEM: Ideas.

In my experience, digital nomadism is inherently constructive.

It’s centred on building, making and offering intelligent solutions to problems.

If you leave us hiding underground, we’ll be more inclined to solve our own problems.

But if we’re recognised and included in discussions about policy and social contribution, then we can offer a powerful and growing set of tools.

That’s why I welcome the article by Paris — even though I disagree with his conclusions.

By promoting discussions about these important ethical issues, the digital nomad scene is going to start engaging with them more, and both finding and executing constructive solutions that will help to make our movement more socially beneficial.

However, government recognition and engagement will significantly assist this process.

What’s clear is that digital nomadism will only grow. And until someone bans laptops, internet access and the right to travel, this remains true.

So if someone wants to be authoritarian and try and stop people from being free to launch an online business and live anywhere, then they’re being neither helpful or realistic.

But if we can have a constructive conversation about how the growing number of people who are working remotely can contribute to the countries in which they live, then this can benefit everyone, everywhere.

The digital nomad scene is young, immature, flawed — and still operating underground a lot.

But if your dream is of a no-borders world, where people are liberated to be creative; and are judged on their character and ideas, rather than their ethnicity, nationality or religion, then I struggle to see a better horse to pin your bet on than the digital nomad scene.