How Remote Work Will Let Millions of People Relocate

Remote work is accelerating a mass relocation trend that could plausibly reach “one billion” digital nomads by 2035, and the shift is already visible in the rise of “Zoom towns”—small cities and resort areas where remote workers rent short-term housing and build temporary communities. The definition of digital nomad in this conversation is narrower than the stereotype of constant city-hopping; it’s remote work away from one’s home country for part of the year. Cheaper air travel, more freelancers, better internet, and the normalization of remote work among startups and mainstream companies are pushing that pattern forward.

The relocation isn’t just about lifestyle. It’s also about where people can find community while living away from home. That idea sits at the core of Nomad List’s city-ranking approach: instead of relying on traditional “quality of life” metrics like Scandinavian stability, it prioritizes factors that matter to remote workers—internet reliability, safety, and livability—then increasingly adds “social data” such as whether other nomads are actually present to form friendships, relationships, and day-to-day support networks. The guest’s own path—from working remotely in Amsterdam, then moving through cities in Southeast Asia, and later proving the model in the U.S.—is framed as a transition many remote workers undergo: office-to-home remote becomes “fun,” and then some people realize they can relocate to different cities or countries while keeping their income.

That transition is showing up unevenly, with San Francisco described as experiencing an exodus as rents fall and residents move to places like Austin, Denver, Tulum, and other nomad-friendly hubs. While the percentage of people making the leap may be higher than the conservative estimate of 5–10%, the key point is that remote work creates the conditions for relocation at scale—especially when entire cohorts (students on online programs, for example) can live and study together in short-term rentals.

For companies, the evolution is less smooth. A “half-remote” culture—some employees in offices, others remote—creates social and cultural fractures that are hard to bridge online. The emerging view is that organizations either commit to a physical office culture or go fully remote; otherwise, remote workers get excluded from informal gatherings and the shared context that builds cohesion.

Beyond logistics, the conversation turns to what people actually want from this new mobility. The strongest drivers are purpose, community, and meaningful work—not the aesthetic pleasures marketed online. Infinity pools, beaches, and curated “dream life” posts are treated as unreliable happiness engines; what sustains people is social connection, fulfilling work, health, and relationships. That same theme shapes the “unsolved problems” for the next wave of nomadism: education systems and healthcare that can travel with families, plus the persistent challenge of building community across changing locations.

Finally, the guest argues that attempts to engineer new “villages” or closed communities often run into the same conflicts that exist in society at large. A more practical approach is to iterate on existing places—improving co-working spaces, cafes, schools, and local services so remote workers integrate rather than transplant an idealized utopia. The overall picture is a relocation revolution driven by work flexibility, constrained by culture, and ultimately judged by whether people can find belonging and purpose wherever they land.