Do you need a higher Living Wage being a digital nomad?
In this interview series Daniela Ceccon, our Director of Data, and Paulien Osse, our Co-founder and Global Lead for Living Wage discuss the topics multinational bring to their desk. True to the theme, in the picture you will see that Dani is in Seoul and Paulien in Cape Town.
Paulien: Hi Dani, more and more people around the world are working remotely. Some even call themselves digital nomads. What counts as their Living Wage? Is it based on where they work remotely, or on where their office is? We’re talking about salaried workers here - how do you think companies should handle these salaried digital nomads?
Dani: Nice question, and I think it’s one that many companies are still figuring out. If I had to take a decision on this, I would start by looking at contract types. If someone is on a local contract - let’s say an Italian contract from an Italian company- then I believe the Living Wage should follow Italian standards. That means two people doing the same job under the same contract, even if they live in different countries, should be paid the same. This would typically apply if they’re both covered by the same Italian collective agreement, for example.
But when companies hire salaried workers who are based long-term in another country and are employed through a local office, it makes more sense to align the Living Wage with where that person actually lives (and works). And this follows what we usually claim, that the workplace matters. We know that some of our clients apply this because they have local offices around the world so they can sign these contracts with local employees. In this case, the workers are "remote" from the HQ's perspective, but in reality they are regular workers in a specific location.
Paulien: Understood. But the reality is - as I understand from companies - that they do it random. Sometimes the Living Wage should be at least meet the country level. Sometimes the Living Wage should be at least the province where the remote working employee lives. So there's no clear system, yet. Also, Dani, what about self-employed remote workers? Should they get a Living Tariff?
Dani: Yes, of course! This is an easy one. The same principle applies: if someone is doing paid work, they should earn enough to cover a decent standard of living where they are working. For self-employed, that means paying a Living Tariff, which is a rate that reflects their real working time, overhead and equipment costs, and local cost of living.
It’s easy to forget that freelancers still need to pay for healthcare, insurance, time off, and administration hours, all things that employees get covered. So if we want fair conditions for all types of workers, companies should not forget about their freelancers, and make sure their freelance rates don’t get less than what it would take to cover a Living Wage plus those extras.
Paulien: And what if you are a salaried remote worker who spends a few days a week in the office in the capital city, for example, and the rest of the time working from a cottage in a rural area? What’s the right Living Wage in that case?
Dani: As I said earlier, for salaried workers, the first thing to look at is the contract. If someone is employed through the company’s capital-city office, for example, and their contract is based there, then the Living Wage should reflect that location, regardless of whether they sometimes work from a rural area.
But we also discuss internally about how hybrid work is changing things a bit. If someone gradually moves to a lower-cost area, like a permanent move to the countryside, does that change things? Maybe. But it's tricky, and we wouldn't recommend adjusting wages based on a few days here or there.
What matters, I think, in this case as well is being consistent and transparent: define the main work location in the contract, and stick to that unless there’s a clear, agreed change. And by the way, this is also a very good example of how Living Wage policies may be evolving alongside the way we work.
Paulien: And what if these remote workers are self-employed?
Dani: Then we are in slightly different territory, here. When someone is self-employed, we can’t talk about a Living Wage in the strict sense, but we can talk about a Living Tariff. And again, the key idea is the same: their pay should be enough to cover a decent living standard where they’re based, including the extra costs that come with being a freelancer, like social security, unpaid sick days, admin time, and so on.
In practice, I would expect that companies propose a Living Tariff based on the region where the person is working. But since these are independent workers, the final rate should always be negotiable. The freelancer might say: “Actually, I’m based in a more expensive city,” or “My overhead costs are higher than what you have calculated.” And that’s fair, I think. They should be able to propose a different rate that reflects their real situation.
As you can see, this is a field that is open to more exploration, but my point is that - as it is also somehow for Living Wages - a Living Tariff shouldn’t be a ceiling, but actually a floor for fair negotiation.
Paulien: Last one: what if the company’s HQ is in Amsterdam or Venice, but the salaried worker decides to move to Cambodia? How do you deal with that: do you lower the Living Wage? Or...?
Dani: To build from what I have said earlier, I would argue that if the person stays on a Dutch or Italian contract, then from a legal and contractual point of view, the Living Wage standard should still follow that country. So technically, no, you wouldn’t lower the wage just because they moved somewhere cheaper.
Paulien: And what if it’s the other way around: say the company’s HQ is in Nairobi, but the salaried worker decides to live in Amsterdam or Venice because their partner is based there? Does the Living Wage go up?
Dani: Well, that’s the difficult point, and honestly something that maybe needs a bit more reflection. So, if the worker is on a Kenyan contract, the standard Living Wage would typically be based on Kenya, even if they choose to live somewhere more expensive. In that sense, it doesn’t automatically go up just because their cost of living does. But we also see the challenge: if the person is now living in a city like Amsterdam or Venice, the Kenyan wage might not be enough to actually make ends meet, so it would not be a "Living Wage" anymore.
Some companies might decide to support these cases individually, especially if the move is long-term and the person is critical to the team. Others might say: the contract stays the same, and the location choice is personal. There’s not a right answer here, but again I would say the important thing is to be consistent, clear about expectations, and mindful of fairness, not just for one person, but across the team.
Paulien: How do you define a remote worker, by the way? And a digital nomad?
Dani: I can explain how I would define them, but of course we can discuss this.
To me, a remote worker is someone who is employed by a company but works regularly from somewhere other than the main office, like from home, a co-working space, or another city. They’re usually salaried and tied to a fixed contract in a specific country.
A digital nomad, on the other hand, is someone who works remotely and moves between countries—sometimes frequently, sometimes more long-term. They’re often freelancers, but some are salaried employees who’ve negotiated the freedom to work from anywhere. Regarding this last case, which we haven't discussed specifically, we know of companies who made a contract with digital nomads as employees by looking at their country of residence, so at where they are "officially" living, even if they move around all the time. If the employee agrees, this could also be a fair approach.
Anyways, I know these definitions don’t cover every possible situation, and that’s exactly why we try to stick to the core principle of Living Wages: making sure that people earn enough to have a decent standard of living. The challenge now is adapting that principle to these new ways of working .
May 2025
