Back in 2015, I wrote about what I then called the “nomadic elite”—a small but visible group of professionals who seemed to thrive on constant relocation, moving from one international assignment to the next with relative ease. At the time, I questioned whether we were perhaps celebrating this lifestyle too much, and overlooking the ways it reinforced privilege and created distance from the broader realities of global work.
Ten years on, the conversation feels even more urgent. The rise of digital nomadism, the expansion of mobility visas, and the normalization of remote work across borders have expanded the scope of what it means to be “nomadic.” Yet the fundamental question remains: who benefits from this new mobility—and who is left behind?
The Rise of Digital Nomadism
For a long time, most global professionals who moved frequently did so under the umbrella of multinational corporations, with HR policies and expatriate packages to support them. Today, a different picture is emerging. Countries from Portugal to Thailand now offer digital nomad visas, designed to attract foreign professionals who earn abroad but spend locally. Remote-first companies are hiring talent wherever it resides, often without requiring relocation at all.
On the surface, this seems like a democratization of global mobility. No longer is international work the preserve of those sponsored by large corporations. Individuals can now craft their own global careers, supported by technology, coworking hubs, and global communities.
But scratch a little deeper, and inequalities remain. The ability to live and work anywhere depends heavily on one’s passport power, income level, and occupation. A software engineer from Berlin may be welcomed with open arms in Bali; a skilled nurse from Manila may face visa barriers in Europe. The global nomadic ideal is still far more accessible to some than to others.
The Allure and the Blind Spots
The romantic image of the digital nomad—laptop on a beach, sipping coffee in Lisbon, flying to Mexico City for a month—continues to captivate. This lifestyle symbolizes freedom, autonomy, and flexibility, values that professionals increasingly crave.
Yet this narrative glosses over several blind spots:
- Precarity: Many nomads lack long-term security, with freelance gigs or volatile contracts replacing steady employment.
- Community Disruption: Constant movement can weaken ties to local communities, creating enclaves of privileged expats living parallel lives to residents.
- Environmental Costs: Frequent travel, particularly air travel, comes with a heavy sustainability footprint.
- Inequity: While celebrated as pioneers, nomads often benefit from regulatory gray zones that are not available to migrants seeking more permanent opportunities.
Towards Sustainable Global Mobility
Rather than rejecting nomadism outright, perhaps the question is how to make it more sustainable, equitable, and inclusive. Organizations and policymakers can play a role:
- Visa Design: Countries could balance digital nomad schemes with efforts to integrate and support migrants who seek more permanent opportunities.
- Corporate Policies: Employers can ensure that location-flexible arrangements do not become privileges for a select few, but part of a broader inclusion strategy.
- Individual Responsibility: Nomads themselves can be more mindful of their footprint—economic, social, and environmental—by engaging with local communities and building longer-term commitments.
For business leaders, the challenge is to think beyond the glamour of global mobility and ask how different forms of international work—from high-end digital nomadism to essential cross-border labor—fit into a more holistic picture of the global workforce.
Rethinking the Nomadic Ideal
When I wrote in 2015 about the “nomadic elite,” I argued that celebrating this group too much risked distorting our view of what global work really means. That caution still holds true today. The stories of digital nomads and remote professionals may be inspiring, but they represent only one slice of the global mobility spectrum.
If we truly want to build a more inclusive global workplace, we must broaden our lens. That means recognizing not just the freedoms of the nomadic elite, but also the constraints faced by those whose mobility is restricted, undervalued, or invisible.
In the end, the question is not whether global mobility should exist; it undoubtedly will. The question is whether it can evolve into something that benefits more than just the privileged few.