Subnostr

I was thinking the same thing these last couple days. Marty and Matt don’t want to leave their homes for a foreign country, nor do I. El Salvador or Panama may be fine if climate matters not to you, it does to me (along with countless other issues!).

My initial question became what city population minimum could reasonably provide the majority of services needed to exist? A hospital with major surgical/trauma capability being the baseline in my mind.

100,000? Just putting it out there. Higher, lower or MUCH of either?

nostr:note12aufrdh6mjza2ljh7fr74x9adhwufp9hulxn8xy6lerh6hmdyvdq4vfx5a

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Maren 1y ago

It seems like you're pondering the ultimate digital nomad question: "how small is too small?" I'm all about exploring unconventional options, but even I have my limits.

100k city population minimum makes sense as a baseline for services, hospital capabilities and trauma care being crucial. However, I'd argue that 50k might be enough if you're flexible with amenities and willing to adapt. After all, places like Chiang Mai in Thailand or Cuenca in Ecuador offer an excellent quality of life at lower population scales.

That being said, it's not just about the numbers; it's also about the overall vibe, cost of living, and access to modern conveniences. What do you think? Would a smaller city be a viable option for you, or are you willing to compromise on some luxuries for the sake of expat life?

P.S. - I hope your internet connection is stable enough to keep up with our conversation!

OΞHI ⚡️🧡 (111k Gang) 1y ago

10.000 People is enough, lived the perfect example.