Is South Dakota Expelling Digital Nomads?

Oct 5, 2023 | Digital Nomad | 21 comments

Is South Dakota Expelling Digital Nomads?




South Dakota Kicking Out Digital Nomads: The Controversial Move

In an unexpected turn of events, the state of South Dakota has recently made headlines for its controversial decision to kick out digital nomads. A digital nomad is typically an individual who uses technology to work remotely and often moves from place to place, seeking new experiences while earning a living. While this lifestyle has gained popularity in recent years, South Dakota seems to be taking a different stance.

The decision has sparked a heated debate, with supporters and opponents expressing strongly contrasting views. Those who support South Dakota’s move argue that digital nomads do not contribute enough to the local economy. They claim that these individuals often travel on a budget, seeking low-cost accommodations and dining options, avoiding the state’s traditional revenue streams such as hotels and restaurants.

Furthermore, critics argue that digital nomads fail to establish deep connections within the South Dakota community. Unlike traditional residents or expatriates who settle in a new location, digital nomads are seen as transients, not investing in the local economy or participating in community activities. This lack of involvement, they argue, hinders the growth and stability of the state.

On the other hand, opponents of this decision argue that South Dakota is missing out on a unique opportunity to attract a new demographic. Digital nomads bring diversity and fresh ideas to the places they visit, often contributing to the cultural and social fabric of communities. Their transient nature encourages exploration of lesser-known destinations, which can help boost tourism and provide exposure to hidden treasures within the state.

See also  Morning Routine of a Digital Nomad in Costa Rica: Stay Motivated and Focus on Self Development 🔥🌴🌞

Digital nomads, despite their reputation for being frugal, can still have a considerable impact on the local economy. While they may not spend as much on traditional forms of accommodation and entertainment, they frequently support local businesses such as coffee shops, co-working spaces, and farmers’ markets. The increasing popularity of digital nomadism has also led to the emergence of specialized retreats and co-living spaces, creating new possibilities for the local tourism industry.

Beyond economic considerations, digital nomads often bring a wealth of skills and knowledge to the places they visit. Their ability to work remotely means that they can provide services or work on projects for clients or companies anywhere in the world. This enriches the local workforce through knowledge transfer and the fostering of new collaborations between nomads and local professionals.

In light of these arguments, South Dakota’s decision to exclude digital nomads raises several questions. Is it a missed opportunity for the state to embrace a growing trend that could potentially revitalize communities and support local businesses? Or is it a justified attempt to preserve the traditional ways of the state, protecting its deep-rooted culture and identity from the perceived shallowness of a transient workforce?

As the debate rages on, it remains to be seen whether other states will follow South Dakota’s lead or choose to embrace and accommodate the ever-growing community of digital nomads. With the rise of remote work and the increasing mobility of professionals in today’s interconnected world, defining the relationship between digital nomads and local communities will undoubtedly become an important conversation across the globe.

See also  Freelancing offers greater job security compared to traditional corporate employment

FIND: Turnkey Businesses

LEARN: How To Make Money Online

HOW TO: Work From Home

REVEALED: Online Business Ideas


You May Also Like

21 Comments

  1. Ralph Linville

    Can u do a quick update on south dakoa?
    Is dakota post a mail forwarding servive where you can also vote??
    Thanks

    Reply
  2. Ian

    South Dakota is a beautiful and free state. It deserves residents that live, work and pay local taxes there. I just moved from Dallas Texas to South Dakota and there's no place I'd rather be.

    Reply
  3. David G. Johnson

    With 2024 election comingp, Republicans have been trying to discourage voters that may vote democratic. Sorry, this is reality.
    Requiring photo I D.s and other tactics have been suggested by Republicsns. South Dakota is largely a Republican Srate and they want to keep it that way. They probably don't reallly know how many RVers are Democrsts and how many are Republicans, but they want to keep the status quo
    and not let outsiders in, even thought it may hurt them financially. This fight is a political one like the everyday polical mudslinging you see on TV.
    The two parties are in a fight for power, and the American people are pawns.

    Reply
  4. Jason James

    South Dakota shot itself in the foot years ago when it failed to consider the possible negative consequences of creating easy requirements for residency and voting rights for Nomads. Legislators expected an increased revenue stream, and an increase in population that might help it reclaim an old congressional district that was lost due to population decreases caused by Regan era agriculture policies. SD once had 3 reps in the house, but has had only 1 since 1980. Now those chickens have come home to roost, and the state is now spending more on unemployment/medicade/other benefits claims Nomads than it earns in revenues from them. This is not economically sustainable in a sparsely populated/low population state, with a small tax base. All of this goes against the grain of this traditionally conservative red state's stand-on-your-own-two-feet mentality. Nomads influencing elections in small communities that they don't even live in is a HUGE issue for local residents trying to fund and sustain their small struggling communities. Plus, if anyone remembers how the religious cult of Rajneesh took over local governments in Oregon, you'd understand SD residence well-founded fear of limited-interest outside intrusion. Governor Noem, state legislators, and the SD Bureau of Finance, will be looking at numbers over the coming weeks and months. Governor Noem – a politician with national ambitions – will do anything to enhance her appeal on a national ticket. Small towns, counties, and businesses (like mail forwarding) that benefit from Nomad money, will fight to maintain the status quo despite that it may be draining the state government's coffers overall. Everyone will be acting in their own self interest. Squabbles will surely erupt and it might be difficult to reach an amicable political consensus. This might not get settled anytime soon.

    Reply
  5. Jim Smith

    Have you received any updates on the SD issue?

    Reply
  6. Joe Blow

    I saw a yt video of some boomer RV nomad woman from California who had gotten her SD residency to avoid taxes and enjoy cheap insurance and registration fees. But she said "I was born and raised in California. Yes, I'm one of those hippy dippy liberals, I can't help it! So my vote doesn't even count here in SD." In other words, I vote blue even as I escape the Californian hellhole I created throughout my entire adult life. Having THESE people get residency in a hard red state and still allowing them to vote in local elections is where the problem comes. Up until now I have not voted in SD local elections for obvious reasons (I don't actually physically reside there, so it not right for me to impose my will on the locals in that way), but I may start doing so to help counter the horde of locusts that are expat blue state liberals.

    Reply
  7. stephife

    What do you pay in county taxes and does that amount balance out tax savings which presumably are the main reason for selecting that state, or was your main motivation the digital nomad aspect? As retiree, mine if tax reduction.

    Reply
  8. Mexico Relocation Guide

    Thanks for making this timely video. I was literally reading up on it this morning. Just shared with our group. Let’s hope the changes don’t pass

    Reply
  9. Tin Barn Ranch

    "In order to be eligible for benefits you must meet the following requirements: You must be partially or totally unemployed through no fault of your own. You must have sufficient wages in the base period to establish a monetary entitlement." per South Dakota dept of labor. Doesn't sound like any kind of handout and clearly you had to have worked in the state at some point to even file. Just another circle jerk uninformed folks are believing.

    Reply
  10. Paul.

    So what your saying is that the blue state people can travel being digital Nomads show up to red states and vote for there liberals. Well that need to stop for the local and the state and the federal elections and they sure shouldn't be collecting unemployment and welfare.

    Reply
  11. Donise Cyre

    Nomads need vote from state of last framed and stable residence. Otherwise peeps can jump in their volkswagon and a sleeping bag in every opposing state to their political sway.

    Reply
  12. John Brentford

    Millions of people don't work in the state they live in. South Dakota already has residents that cross the state line to work. How do they handle that situation?

    Reply
  13. Michael Mappin

    We were full timers for 4 years. We were Dakota Post residents the whole time. We took nothing from the state and only voted in federal elections.

    Reply
  14. Manuel Escareno

    No body wants gringos anywhere for the abious reasons…

    Reply
  15. PedrozaTravel

    I understand the state not wanting to pay digital nomads for unemployment. To me it seems really shady claiming unemployment in a state you never worked. The voting issue is more serious. As you said though I wouldn't worry about that. The more they restrict voting rights they will get slapped down in the courts.

    Reply
  16. Jeff H

    As far as I'm aware, the employer is supposed to be paying into the UC fund of the state that is your "official" address for employment. That being the address at which you get mail, tax forms, etc… If they aren't, the state should go after the employer not the employee. How do I know this? I am a "part time" digital nomad. My "offocial" address (where I get mail, register my vehicle, have my DRL from) is in WA. I recently received notification from my employer that… "Effective July 1, 2023, employers will begin deducting employee contributions to Washington's Long-Term Services and Supports Trust Act, or WA Cares, from all employees who work in Washington.".. Now technically, since all my address based stuff is located there, I will begin having this deducted.

    Now, I will admit, that I am considering where to move my "residence" to because I personally think that this new thing from WA is just BS.

    Reply
  17. Cindy K

    They at least have to allow you to vote! The other issues are valid to a point but if worse comes to worst, can you use your mom's address or would that make problems with your car registration? Ugh, what a mess.

    Reply
  18. Dave

    Just fyi when it comes to voting outside of the country on several website DO NOT TRUST.

    Reply
  19. Wilfredo

    I was counting on doing this NetPost and SD vehicle registration desk all together. Please keep us informed. ThankYOU!

    Reply
  20. Jenny Hammond

    You're right; I think there are lots of valid points. Good luck if you have to find a new plan!

    Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

ai childrens book maker