"The idea of "giving back" to the host community is particularly intriguing. It is important to explore the ways in which DNs are willing and able to contribute positively to their host communities, offsetting any potential negative impacts. This concept embodies a form of reciprocity that goes beyond economic transactions and extends to social and cultural exchanges."
Sure, we just should not forget that for systemic solutions, the nomads themselves will probably not be enough from an overall perspective. There are nomads-emitting and nomads-receiving countries with their tax flows, differences in living standards, etc. Do the emitting countries owe anything to the receiving countries, since, for instance, "earning an income typical of a higher-cost location" happens in the former while the "benefiting from the lower cost of living" takes place in the latter?
1) Nomads themselves will definitely not be enough. It's also not right to place the whole burden and responsibilities on them.
2) Interesting perspective to ask if they ''owe anything to the receiving countries''. I would say this goes way beyond the nomad/gentrification issue. Maybe taxes could be the solution - taxing the stay of nomads and for pursuing geo-arbitrage. This could be a more deepened tourist tax.
"The idea of "giving back" to the host community is particularly intriguing. It is important to explore the ways in which DNs are willing and able to contribute positively to their host communities, offsetting any potential negative impacts. This concept embodies a form of reciprocity that goes beyond economic transactions and extends to social and cultural exchanges."
Sure, we just should not forget that for systemic solutions, the nomads themselves will probably not be enough from an overall perspective. There are nomads-emitting and nomads-receiving countries with their tax flows, differences in living standards, etc. Do the emitting countries owe anything to the receiving countries, since, for instance, "earning an income typical of a higher-cost location" happens in the former while the "benefiting from the lower cost of living" takes place in the latter?
1) Nomads themselves will definitely not be enough. It's also not right to place the whole burden and responsibilities on them.
2) Interesting perspective to ask if they ''owe anything to the receiving countries''. I would say this goes way beyond the nomad/gentrification issue. Maybe taxes could be the solution - taxing the stay of nomads and for pursuing geo-arbitrage. This could be a more deepened tourist tax.