NGL, not asking for a friend. Given the current trends in US politics, it seems prudent to at least look into it.

Most of the online content on the topic seems to be by immigration attorneys hustling ultra rich people. I’m not ultra rich. I have a job in tech, could work remotely, also have enough assets to not desperately need money if the cost of living were low enough.

I am a native English speaker, fluent enough in Spanish to survive in a Spanish speaking country. I am old, male, cis, hetero, basically asexual at this point. I am outgoing, comfortable among strangers.

What’s good and bad about where you live? Would it be OK for a outsider, newcomer?

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    What OP is talking about has been a thing since the 90s and even 80s and earlier with ex-military.

    Move to a cheap country where your pension/disability/passive income/whatever makes you wealthy.

    Originally places liked it because it was an influx in cash. But then it became too popular and they were gentrifying places to the point locals couldn’t afford to live and these leeches never worked.

    It became big again with the internet when people became able to work and American job while overseas remotely. But by now most American companies just won’t pay American wages. If they wanted someone overseas they’d pay them the low wage they always do.

    With those younger people they added the “temporary” because they say they’ll move back someday.

    What you’re talking about (if the job is in that country) would be a migrant worker.

    But they also don’t like that label, they think they’re better than it.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      I’d argue we should call all migrant workers expats. Unless they’re literally working in a migratory fashion, spring here, summer there, fall somewhere else, etc.