Singapore's Prime Minister will earn S$3.6M a year from October 15th. That's about $2.84M, equal to a 64% raise. Before someone feels outraged by that, let me remind that this was Lee Kuan Yew's recipe to avoid corruption. The logic was simple. If you pay ministers at market rate, nobody needs to buy them. Personally, I've never understood why, to be an accountant reviewing and filing accounts with the State, you need a degree, exams passed, continuous education etc. To run the State itself: nothing. Doesn't make too much sense, no? Not to sound like a broken record, but Singapore's model is extremely reasonable: 35% of ministerial pay is variable. The National Bonus, as it's called, is set by four indicators: real median income growth, real income growth of the bottom 20%, unemployment, and real GDP growth. So their pay is tied to how the country actually performs. Not to how well they campaign.

Americans aren't only richer, they consume much more than anyone else. That's why they feel richer in Southern Europe and travel to Europe has doubled in a decade. It's not only purchasing power, but also propensity to consume. When they travel to countries where prices are 20–40% lower, their already high consumption power stretches dramatically further. I'd make it much easier to get digital nomad visas, and access to tax exemption regimes. Take Italy. Imagine if instead of focusing on flat tax and retirees, digital nomad visas and tax breaks for tech workers were easier to get and stronger. How many would come to build from Italy, worldwide?