Japan is a country that is expensive to live in. Having minimum salary requirements already filters out the type of 'digital nomad' who would otherwise become a burden on society or those who merely seek immigration from Africa or South Asia under the disguise of the 'digital nomad'.
$68k about the median household income in the USA - and higher than the median in a lot of states. One could live a comfortable life in many parts of the USA for that salary.
Particularly if you’re not living in Tokyo, Fukuoka for instance is significantly cheaper despite also being a densely populated city with the usual amenities.
They don't want pretenders. They want people who are going to be productive and bring something to the country. They're not looking for "backpackers," they're looking for well paid professionals who will spend money and also conform better (these people would hire people to do paperwork, translate, etc., rather than drain local resources.)
People may not agree with the above, but that's what they want, and I can't blame them for wanting good for their country.
EDIT - you changed "poser" to "pretender" which was a small improvement. It's polite to make it clear that you've edited a comment if someone has replied.
Japan legislature seems to spend a lot of time passing these kind of laws that only ever affect a few people. But with some of the other ones after a few years of no one using the residency statuses, they loosened up the requirement a bit.
Well, the digital nomad doesn't spend a lot of money. Some on accommodation, some for internet, some for food, and that's it. He spends his time remote working on his laptop. His income is paid offshore.
Apart from the tourist aspect of it, the point of a digital nomad is to save money on rent, food and taxes, not to spend all your money in a foreign country.
Of course, a business hub, or a technological hub can attract digital nomads punctually, even if accommodations are more expensive.
Now Japan has a problem with its age pyramid and desertification of its country side. So it should be possible to attract digital nomad for longer and cheaper stays, even if they don't have a lot of money (to spend in Japan), at least that's good for the young body count, and perhaps they'd eventually fixate and have families. But again, this wouldn't be a six-month thing, they would have to add more incentive (free or $1-house in the countryside with minimal occupancy, good internet connection (I don't know if Japan has 100% territory fiber coverage) (that said nowadays there's Starlink), etc.
I would have thought that the point of spending 6 months in Japan was to experience Japan in a deeper and more relaxed way than a short-ish trip as a tourist.
Spending money on living expenses, including rent, and touristy stuff is indeed spending money in the country. And if you are well paid then that may be more than the average local: the threshold for this visa is $68k while the average annual pay in Japan is apparently $41-45k.
How is everyone reading this as me saying "no money"? You can have significantly less than $58k provable income and live very nicely while travelling. Is this some silicon valley bubble thing?
"No money" is obviously a figure of speech. I rephrase: Why would they want people with "significantly less than 58k/68k provable income"?
"Digital nomad" can encompass many and any thing. It seems sensible to target higher earners if they can. It's not about how nicely you think you can live, it's about the benefits a country seeks in letting foreigners in.
Totally. They should allow anyone, even those with no income, to come to their country and use their services for nothing in return. We can see how well that's worked in the US.
