Amazing Places Affordable With San Francisco Rent
teleport.orgCan I throw one into the list? The median cost of a one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco gets you approximately two bedrooms in Tokyo... in a semi-luxury apartment, in the most desirable neighborhoods. (Though this comparison is complicated a bit by the non-comparability of Japanese and US real estate. For example, your costs on move-in day will be substantially higher in Tokyo, and the real price of apartments is a few percentage points higher than the sticker price due to being assessed 1 month's rent every time you renew the rental contract, which happens in 2 to 5 year intervals.)
Still though, given that I have had lifelong impressions of Tokyo as being the most expensive place to live anywhere, I was pretty gobsmacked when I started doing the math.
You don't even have to leave the country: http://www.trulia.com/rental/3162120184-Apt-Condo-Twnhm-Chic....
The decor is a little bit eclectic (though I love wall paper), and the lake view is indirect, but it's a quiet little corner just a few blocks from the magnificent mile: https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=E+Chestnut+St+%26+N+Dewit.... Only $2,000 per month for a 2BR and 1,000 square feet.
You can do much, much better than this in Chicago by choosing a location anywhere outside the mag mile. The overwhelmingly superior quality of rental housing in Chicago is one many reasons this is a great place to start a company (unless you're hoping to raise VC money).
Also: give up. You're obviously moving back here. You bring Chicago up more than I do! One- of- us. One- of- us.
I would've posted an area a bit younger/more residential, but I didn't know what the article meant by "city center" for SF. Moving back is on the radar: we'd like to buy a place at some point and we can't really conscience the housing prices in DC or NYC, especially considering that in our field Chicago pays as much as anywhere else.
If you ever need a demonstration of that UI concept where "more choice makes things harder", try taking a long-term remote gig, then go buy a house.
Easy, right? Not so much.
You see, if you got an on-site job in Portland, you'd have a choice: Live out in the suburbs and commute in, or go Urban and pick up a loft in the Pearl District. You've got maybe a 20 mile radius to choose from. Head over to Zillow and you'll have things narrowed down in an hour or so.
Ok, instead, let's see what happens when your choice is limited by "Someplace on the planet."
I spent the better part of two years auditioning surf breaks in various 3rd world countries, after drawing from another 10 years of experience backpacking around the world and stopping for months at various climbing destinations, beaches, cities, etc. I knew enough to know that no place is perfect in all respects, and that each new place you visit will just add another tick box or two onto the list of "things my ideal location needs to have". You get to learn a lot about what your (and your family's) actual priorities are.
Granted, it's a bit of a first world problem to have. But it's definitely an issue, and not one that you immediately think about when you land a gig that lets you work from "anywhere".
What you describe seems like a very nice problem to have.
It may sound like a great idea, but you should make sure it's suitable for your needs. The main reason I couldn't live in Cape Town is how limited the internet access is. Try finding a coffee shop with "free WiFi". They may exist, but they'll hand you a voucher for a 5MB bandwidth cap. There are cheaper markets in America, including the South or Midwest, where you can find lower cost of living and gigabit fiber.
Is it typical for a digital nomad to still be paid a competitive SF salary? I'm assuming companies don't provide cost of living adjustment for telecommuters so I'm guessing base salary would be much less than 100k
That's a very harmful assumption to make. If you need a datapoint, I work remotely, and I always work at my "Bay Area" rate even though I've never lived there.
There was a point, early in my guy-on-the-beach-with-a-laptop era where I would cut my bill rate in half while working from the beach with a laptop. Clients were happy about that, and it more than paid for beers and thatch huts. Then one time I tried not cutting my bill rate in half. Nobody but me seemed to notice. So now I don't do that anymore.
Neither should you. The work you're doing is exactly the same regardless of where you do it from. Charge accordingly.
Not making any assumptions, just reading the OP. I was thinking more about employees than freelancers/contractors. In that case it's your business run it how you want and if your customers are willing to pay you're in luck!
Edit:spelling
No of course not.
Remote working engineers are paid for their performance on the "remote market". So you don't compete with engineers in SF but worldwide. Maybe you will have a different salary than a engineer in SF, but it doesn't matter if you live in Austin or in Auckland.
I recommend researching the legal requirements for living and working in each destination on the list, and including these in the article.
This would include visa requirements, and those related to the viability of renting an apartment annually, as a foreigner.
Otherwise, it's just (pleasant) daydreaming. :)
I’m also fairly certain that the very vast majority of people - particularly those who evince a ‘digital nomad’ lifestyle, are going to be drawn in any way, shape or form, to Burma, of all places. Not exactly a friendly government, just ask.
I'd like to see this list adjusted for "salary an entry-level {Google, Facebook, Twitter, ...} employee would make in ${LOCATION}". Does a ${COMPANY} employee in Greece actually make the same $100 000 USD as one in SF?
I imagine you could solve this problem by working remotely with companies in the US or Bay Area.
Let's move. Where should we go? - The last question is the bigger problem, than realising that we actually all should. So, where?