Took a vacation to Iceland for this past new year's, and am thrilled to hear any news that might allow me to stay there for longer. When I left Iceland, it felt very much like I was leaving a fairy tale.
I was delighted by the whales off the coast, and the northern lights felt like a spiritual event, but (at least according to lore) the Vikings invented the modern new year celebration by considering it a good enough time for everyone to dispose of their old flares and replace them with new, and so new year's in Iceland was better than the greatest fireworks show I'd ever witnessed, despite exactly 0% of the fireworks having been municipally provided. It felt like every member of every home had spent their life savings on fireworks and were setting them all off for hours. Impossible to describe, but here's some drone footage (not mine) that captures about 10 minutes of what went on for hours, and the experience from the city center on the ground was even more encompassing.
Been on Iceland on NY21/22 as well, NYE from the Perlan was absolutely mindnumbing. Vik was absolutely beautiful. Polar Lights left me completely speechless.
Most beautiful country in the world. Even though the winter was harsh. Perfect if you love photography, the whole day Golden Hour basically.
Interesting people describe outdoors as sort of best thing for digital nomad. I live in NZ and really disliked visiting Iceland, but I can see how it would be nice as a developer - stay indoors because it's cold and dark, people kinda introverted, not much to do overall.
Iceland was absolutely fantastic. Iceland Air started doing direct flights from Vancouver and my wife and I got on the inaugural flight, despite her being several uncomfortable months pregnant.
Some highlights:
* We saw geysir, the first geyser known to modern Europeans and the source of the name "geyser" [0]
* We went inside of a volcano [1]
* We did not get fooled by Icelandic polar bears [2]
* We (well, I) ate an average of two hot dogs per day [3]
* We saw a viking home which they unearthed during construction and then built a museum around [4]
* We boiled ourselves like happy lobsters [5]
* We had te og kaffi, which smelled and tasted like the best cafe I'd been to in years [6]
We went in April and were really glad we'd bought sleeping masks for the flight as the midnight sun did throw us for a loop. We were walking down the street one day wondering why all the stores were closed already, then saw a group of young women in glittery dresses and platform heels walking down the street. Checked my phone and it was 11 PM on a Saturday. Oh, okay, clubbing. Right, it's bedtime. Okay.
When we got back from Iceland, my wife was starting a new position at her company where she had to show up at 6:30 AM, so we ended up keeping the same sleep schedule and getting up at 3:30 every morning to have breakfast and commute together. Working in tech meant I had about six hours alone in the office before anyone else really showed up, which was quite peaceful.
Highly recommend Iceland, even if you don't go for New Year's!
I did not go inside of a volcano, but did climb a glacier. Otherwise, while I thought the hot dogs were pretty neat, the wife didn't care for them, so we stuck to the one and then engaged in more of their fine dining options.
Dill and Ōx were phenomenal. One of them has a Michelin star, but I can't remember which. Kol was also pretty great. Otherwise, it was great snacking on stupid gift-shop snacks like smoked salmon and capers as a dramatic contrast to the typical American gift shop snacks of corn chips.
The settlement exhibition we saw as part of a walking tour, and absolutely adored, but somewhat overshadowed by the "Bureaucrat" statue across the street from it[1].
Didn't have te og kaffi, but did enjoy Skyr (which is a cheese that you can DRINK).
On the whole, I enjoyed it more than I could have thought possible. You mentioned Iceland Air, and one thing I thought was really smart was that they've positioned themselves as a destination layover going from North America to Europe. We usually travel to Europe for vacations, but this time we "punted" and chose Iceland as our preferred accommodations in London were unavailable, and now I am keen to make a tradition of stopping over in Iceland everywhere I can.
Nice, glad to hear you went to Iceland as well! I went in 2020, not sure when the YVR<->KEF direct flights started though! We just snuck in before COVID got crazy, and in fact our flight home got canceled the night before we were due to leave -- ended up getting booked a replacement flight through LHR though it required a bunch of stressful calls to Iceland Air.. that was an interesting finale to the trip. On the upside, all tourist attractions were basically empty and we had an even more "isolated" and otherworldly experience than planned! A+++ would visit Iceland at the start of a pandemic again :)
I was sold when you said "direct flights from Vancouver". One of the biggest pain points for me is having to get connecting flights in the east coast for most destinations we plan to go to.
What is the temp on a winter night? I once spent NYE in NYC and froze my butt off... much preferred my time in Rio DJ. :-D Would love to try Iceland in the summer.
Depends on the night, obviously, but "very cold" is a safe assertion.
The first day there I had a hard time, thinking that my casual cold-weather gear would keep me comfortable was a mistake I learned the hard way tracking the northern lights on a mountaintop at 2 in the morning on the coldest night they'd had in 50 years.
But, the next day I picked up a pair of (expensive) sweatpants to act as a third layer, and I was just fine. Toasty enough that at night times I'd casually take off a hat or some gloves.
If you absolutely hate cold weather, maybe check it out in summer time. If you're willing to layer (and not just throw on dumb layers like I did) then it's totally manageable.
I found the magic combo to be:
* Thermalsilk top and bottom base layer
* An intermediate layer for very cold nights (https://www.icewear.is/us/fodurland-wool-underwear-baselayer)
* I got away with those two and a pair of Amazon Basics chinos, but a hard shell outer layer is probably smarter if you're trekking through snow
Otherwise, normal layering rules apply. Have a scarf and gloves (ideally, with liners) and a good hat, then Thermalsilk and a winter coat were all I needed, but I would often have a niceish sweatshirt layered in there as we often had dinner plans and I didn't want to violate any dress-code norms.
Pretty similar to NYC in winter (because Gulf Stream). But then, I don't consider NYC especially cold for the most part; it's basically mid-Atlantic relative to New England much less northern Midwest.
In fact, there are areas of Iceland (generally long stretches of road where the wind can funnel through valleys) where the wind can knock cars or buses clear off the road.
Generally, they issue weather advisories for that sort of thing, but that would have been handy to know in advance to check for.
It's cold. The temp is cold, but the wind is rough. Expect lots of layers, gloves, and hats pretty much all the time in the winter. I lived in Denver for a couple of years and Iceland felt much colder.
I have always been blown away by money requirements for such visas, in many countries.
Show monthly income of 1000000 ISK. Over 7k USD. Why?
I used to live in Dubai, which is considered pretty expensive place, and never spent over 2500 per month, despite dining out almost all the time. Maybe 3000 if I needed some purchases like clothing or hobbies stuff.
I get it, Numbeo says Iceland is 13% more expensive, but 7k? What exactly kind of lifestyle are they expecting from humble nomad?
Not all nomads work remotely for FAANG. Some live happy nomad life with much lower income.
That's realistic if you are there as a tourist who wants the premium experience on everything.
Staying in hotels and eating out daily, we didn't spend 7k when extrapolating our two weeks to a month. Heck, it's still below 7k if you include all one-time purchases like the way there and back, clothing, new expensive hiking boots, etc. I've got a problem with most waterproof fabrics so I didn't have a raincoat, but reading about Iceland, I figured it's worth finding one that works for me, so that's another purchase I count towards my Iceland expenses. All in all still below 7k after extrapolation. (Edit: oh and I forgot that this is for 2 persons. You can't divide by two of course, but some correction factor should be applied.)
I fully agree with anyone saying Iceland is expensive, but if you stay in an actual apartment instead of hotels, don't do a number of guided tours every month, don't rent a vehicle for the whole time you're there (and drive around, though fuel was a surprisingly small part of the final expenses), you'll definitely not need 7k per month.
They have absolutely no interest in sponsoring visitors. This visa program is intended to bring in well-off professionals who will have plenty of cash to live a comfortable lifestyle and cover a disastrous broken leg or two and still be able to fly back home if they lose their job. That $7k is before taxes, before retirement savings, before health insurance, before your assumed flight home once every month or two...
That's actually a good point that it's before taxes, I hadn't factored that in.
If you live in a low tax country, you would ordinarily have a lot to spend and be rich, and also have enough money to live off of in Iceland potentially, but might not meet that requirement by even half, whereas someone from a high tax country loses roughly half their income on them and would meet the requirement. Not the fairest method but, as you say, this clearly isn't geared toward charitableness in the first place.
> whereas someone from a high tax country loses roughly half their income on them
Please, typically those taxes go (not completely) to stuff you’d otherwise be paying for from your after tax cash.
One obvious one is health care (which Americans pay much more for than Europeans, just not via their taxes). Less spent on roads: more car maintenance/shorter car lifespan.
One can have a reasonable argument over which should be bundled and which should be unbundled, but to say broadly that one “loses” on taxes is either lazy or ideology.
> One obvious one is health care (which Americans pay much more for than Europeans, just not via their taxes).
Interesting ignored fact: the US government spends as much per capita on health care as socialized systems. We also have to match that amount out of pocket, but that's because healthcare in the US costs twice as much, not because less tax money goes to it.
It's actually more than that. Last I checked the US government spends much more per capita on health care than any other country on earth. And by a large margin, not quite twice the 2nd country spending the most but almost.
Ok but if you're from a high-tax country and work temporarily in Iceland you're paying those higher taxes without most of the benefits. You can't access the better healthcare, education, and safer streets of your home country.
You’re getting those benefits in general, though not at that instant, but is the tax you pay on march 28th making every street you drive on that day better? No, it’s smeared around spatially and temporally.
If you’re in Iceland for six months you might not even owe taxes in your home country for that period.
Also, I assume that the Icelanders don't want all that many digital nomads showing up. From their point of view setting a USD7k cut-off limits the inflow and gets them something like the cream of the crop.
I'd say that people who would find Spain and Iceland appealing for this sort of thing are two different demographics (of course, not without overlap). Much as I love Spanish food, culture and my Spanish friends, moving to Spain for six months holds little appeal. Iceland, on the other hand...
Realistically, while shipping costs will play a part, the prices are going to have a lot to do with the fact that Iceland's a separate, small national market. It's not even in the EU customs union, though it is in the Single Market. You can be sure that the biggest retailers who do operate there aren't losing money in Iceland. It also seems to be a hothouse economy with incomes and costs driven by high-wage industries related to tech and, apparently, cod. Not completely unlike Ireland or Switzerland but an order of magnitude smaller, and with no membership in a large customs zone.
So in some ways it's a really bad place for fully remote workers to choose to live: a bit like moving to Seattle! Or at least it can be said that you'd be using your freedom of movement exclusively as an opportunity to party down (or maybe to raise children somewhere nice) and not at all as an opportunity to save any money. On the other side of the ledger, I suppose that if you really must leave the US and Canada (or can't get in) and you want to live as close as possible to the US Eastern or Central timezone in a nice fully-developed country which is very easy to navigate using only English there aren't many other options. The UK doesn't seem to welcome digital nomads and its Home Office is no fun to interact with, anyway; Ireland might not be that much cheaper these days and it's certainly not as glamorous a playground as Iceland. Honestly I'd look into finding a posh, safe neighbourhood in Barbados first, though. https://www.visitbarbados.org/barbados-welcome-stamp I suppose one other advantage of Iceland might be the chance to network with other people in tech, but maybe you'd have to at least get conversational in Icelandic to really pull that off?
>> That's no excuse. Burgers in Fiji cost a quarter of that, and everything is shipped in from far further than it does to Iceland.
Does the nation subsidize costs? I went to a couple of countries where staples were remarkably inexpensive and later learned that most of them were subsidized by the national government.
Nope, not at all. BUT on further thought, beef at a local burger joint is locally produced. Everything else (wheat, cheese, onions, tomato, lettuce, sauces, etc) is usually imported.
Of course at McDonalds and Burger King, everything is imported and they cost about the same (or less) than what a burger costs at a local joint.
I believe Iceland also generates its own electricity from geothermal energy.
Import is super cheap unless it's something perishable like fresh fish and salad and needs to come over via plane. Local delivery normally costs much more.
In NZ right now a kilo of tomatoes is on par with one kilo of chicken.
Why would a tiny exclusive island ever want anyone other than high income individuals to move there?
If it weren't the fact that US cities cannot restrict the free migration of individuals, almost all of them would ban anyone moving there who didn't make above the average income for the area. Hawaii's last Republic governor tried every possible step to kick out the Marshallese, which is fucking hilarious considering how few of them there are globally.
If it wasn't for the US constitution you'd have giant slums in the interstitial space between cities, with a few zones stylized after the Jewish Autonomous Oblast here and there as well.
This is simply not accurate. The US was historically and is currently built by accepting poor immigrants. As the famous poem by Emma Lazarus says, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free".
The US is and always has been a place where the poorest can make something for themselves. No matter what rhetoric you spout, this is still demonstrably true: 40 million Americans are first generation immigrants. Another 40 million second generation.
So when I, as an American, see these heavy restrictions, it highlights a couple things for me:
1) Just how different US immigration culture is from anywhere else. And how despite all the anti-US rhetoric, all the political nonsense, we are still the most welcoming place in the world for immigrants, and it isn't even close.
2) How unwilling other nations are to provide opportunities for people outside their borders. I want to go a little further and say these nations don't have much interest in being a part of the world if they can't exploit it.
> despite all the anti-US rhetoric, all the political nonsense, we are still the most welcoming place in the world for immigrants, and it isn't even close.
Haha, hardly. I've seen Indians genuinely discussing that if your life plan is to move permanently to the US the best way to do it is to first move to Canada and get citizenship there.
Yes, the US is more welcoming of immigrants than a small, wealthy, tight-knit island with extensive (and expensive) social services, at least on some measures (OTOH one could argue that Iceland not providing healthcare to immigrants shouldn't count against it when the US doesn't provide healthcare to immigrants either). But Iceland is hardly representative of non-US countries in general.
The US had the advantage of mostly eliminating the indigenous population. The only Americans who aren't immigrants are natives and the descendants of slaves. Other countries have large native populations.
> I want to go a little further and say these nations don't have much interest in being a part of the world if they can't exploit it.
Is the implication here that the US is not busy exploiting the rest of the world, starting with the fundamental economic reliance on migrant workers that aren't good enough to actually be working there legally?
Yep. For comparison, there are 53 incorporated cities in the United States that have a greater population than all of Iceland (372,520). If you expand it to metropolitan areas, it's 147.
Edit to expand: 37 of the 50 United States have a greater land area than Iceland too. So Iceland is pretty small in both regards.
Local tech worker in Iceland, and this is the going rate for a midrange software worker.
Wages here have grown ~25% (for the whole country) over the last ~4 years (if my memory from the reporting on this is correct).
Everything has to be imported, and what little that isn't is heavily reliant on imported goods.
Living here is mightily expensive.
Ofcourse you could live more frugally, and obviously most here do. Tech workers here are in the top income bracket like in most other places.
Not sure why digital nomad visas should have lower restrictions though. We want foreigners that come here and spend their money. No need to make it easier for the frugal tourist to come here for longer.
> Show monthly income of 1000000 ISK. Over 7k USD. Why?
I'm not familiar with the reasoning for Iceland specifically but in another country (Switzerland) I was in the position of having to apply for long-term work visas for myself and some of my employees. There they justified the high income requirement because they wanted to know you weren't going to bring in cheap foreign labour and thereby undercut local wages. So you had to show that the wages were high in absolute terms and that you weren't paying less than the national average.
They want to attract high value individuals because they are doing this to benefit their country and economy while limiting the number of people, not to make foreigners happy.
Edit: apparently the average income in Iceland is close to $6k per month so 7k is not even "high value", it's just making sure only people who earn at least an average income qualify, which makes sense.
Your FAANG job probably wouldn't allow you to work from Iceland anyway.
Still the requirements are less strict than Thailand's remote work visa [0] but that lasts for 5 years renewable for another 5.
In Thailand's case the existence of a work-from-Thailand visa also clarifies that working remotely on other visas (Tourist, Non-O, Non-B) is not permitted.
Why though? HR is right to be leery of allowing people to work overseas when the legal status of that is doubtful, but Iceland apparently went out of their way to clarify that situation.
Isn't Iceland inhabited by like 340k people? Maybe they're testing the waters or trying to limit how many people end up moving there.
Overall I agree. DNs would use Portugal's D7 to move in (in an exception of what the visa was originally intended to), but then Portugal introduced a DN visa which now requires a much higher income than what D7 requires, I think 4x times more than D7.
D7 was minimum wage, if I recall correctly, around 800 euros per month. I don't think 4x minimum wage is at all unreasonable if it makes the process smoother, since they make the D7 application process as horrible as possible.
I had an awful experience applying for D7, so I am now happily living in Dubai instead which has the best residency process I have seen for ANY country.
The goal is to get self sufficient people (who will stimulate the economy through consumption and not incur costs on the government), not buskers or low-impact nomads.
I know tech salaries outside the US can be much lower, but the requirements Iceland is putting up are basically enough (pre tax) for almost any tech employee in the US. Not just FAANGs. Not sure if Iceland is counting gross vs net pay but even if so, it’s enough for a very large portion of us tech employees still
Basically because you already need to have visa free entry to Schengen (and if you're an EEA/CH citizen you can already move there) this is only available to North Americans, Aussies/Kiwis, and other rich countries like Japan, as well as us Brits mourning our FOM.
Iceland is the 3rd most expensive country in the world to live in. Just look at the prices in ISK for the websites of businesses in Reykjavik, one of the only cities there with cellular data service, and convert it to your local currency.
Your money will stretch 3x-5x further in Europe unless you plan to build yourself an igloo and catch fish lol. Europe isn’t known for being cheap either.
Yeah, this is what disqualifies me, although together with my partner, I could possibly make it work. I wonder what accommodation prices are like in Iceland.
I am afraid I will get downvoted for this heavily. But in my experience Iceland (just like its name) is a desert with no vegetation and consequently has minimum biodiversity.
No matter what is the carrot being hung, I would not wish to be in this land.
> But in my experience Iceland (just like its name) is a desert with no vegetation and consequently has minimum biodiversity.
Yes, although don't let the bus out from Keflavik fool you, the south west tip of the island is lava flats and it does look a bit like the moon. The rest of the country is a lot more interesting than that.
However you _never_ go to Iceland for the biodiversity, same way you don't go to Bangladesh for the diarrhoea. You go for the pristine wilderness, the ice and glaciers, the volcanism, the aurora borealis, the perma-day in the summer, the people (they're amazing!), the partying, the new year celebration (most households fire a firework at 00:00) or the language which is as close to ancient norse as you can get.
Also what is unique to Iceland is its size and culture, it is very Anglosphere, and a curious blend of European and American in culture (due to the legacy of the US base) Reykjavik has elements of both city and village life in a single spot and its an interesting test bed for services or products as a consequence.
As OP said, iceland is about as un biodiverse as it gets. I've been a few times and it's as close to the moon as possible. That said it is beautiful and kind of feels like....you're on a giant desert island surrounded by mountains that's very cold, and very expensive.
My secondhand understanding of Iceland is that the entire island is grazed by herds of domesticated animals. It's like a small, cold, remote version of Texas.
Whatever floats your boat but Iceland is absolutely spectacular to look at as a visitor; Texas…is not (though I’m sure in a state that big there are going to be some scenic spots somewhere).
As you say, the biodiversity is minimal, but the topology is stunning.
Also, Reykjavik is an amazing little city.
Yes, the weather is often terrible (the cold is bad, the grey skies and wind are far worse), but some people like that sort of thing.
If I were a digital nomad I’d absolutely spend a few months in Iceland.
I could not disagree more. I absolutely love Iceland and would love to return. I cannot recommend it strongly enough. My experience was beautiful scenery (with plenty of vegetation), stunning glaciers and hot springs etc, and very friendly and welcoming people.
Have you visited it's such a cool/unique place and it's really not crazy cold there (20 to 45 F in the winter on average). The wind is intense, but the cold is not like something like Fairbanks, Alaska.
Things I love about Iceland compared to the US
- Almost zero crime
- Police, I only saw three cars in nine days
- No one can carry a gun
- All citizens (free healthcare) well paid compared to US
- Hot water from a faucet comes directly from the ground
- Geothermal govt run bathhouses in each neighborhood for after work socializing.
- Hike to an active volcano or to a hot river to bathe in
- Beautiful outdoor scenery
- The Northern Lights
One negative is it's expensive i.e. a large pizza from a pizzeria here in the states will run you $12 to $15 while there it's $21 to $25.
Note that it is not this rosie in reality. Iceland has issues like any other places:
- There are still crimes, particularly against women during the nightlife which isn’t investigated and reported in crime statistics.
- Police just acquired permission from the minister of justice to carry stun guns. There are recent cases of racial profiling which are particularly worrysom
- Gun laws are increasingly un-enforced and gun crimes are on the rise. Iceland has one of the largest per capita gun ownership in Europe.
- The healthcare system is increasingly underfunded, wait lists for healthcare are getting longer. A recent immigration bill denies health care to asylum seekers.
- Hot water is a plenty so this is mostly true.
- The swimming pools are amazing places to socialize and still relatively cheap... So this is also true
- The volcano has stopped erupting, this last one was indeed very approachable. More likely volcanoes form way in the highlands and are not approachable unless you can charter a plain or a helicopter.
- The outdoor scenery is relative. I much more favor the trees in the pacific north west where I live now over the mossy lava-fields where I grew up.
- The northern lights are cool but light pollution is a problem in and around the city or any town and village.
There are no school shootings yet here there's almost one a day it seems.
Seemed as safe as Norway where moms leave their babies out in their carriages bundled up for fresh air while they go into their house to clean. A mom who did that here would be possibly arrested
So Iceland is paradise if you are a tired of seeing all the crime in America. I didn't know it was that bad here til my dates (locals) I met and talked with at one of the neighborhood family bathhouses pointed it out. How scared they are of going to the US. Which I replied it's not that bad not everyone has a gun yet once I was home I had a crazy gunman who shot police hiding in the woods of my backyard and we were told to shelter in place. Sure that's not happening in Iceland cause even and only police only have stun guns!
You can only use that trick so much. The island I live on (Australia) has a population of 25.6 million (1/13th) of the USA yet also seems to get on the fine with no school shootings (and very restricted gun ownership)
I'm not trying to use a trick. It's just pointless to compare Iceland to a country that's three orders of magnitude bigger. Lots of bad things and lots of good things happen in the US that don't happen there. Places like Australia or Germany or Mexico could be more reasonably compared to the US.
And the guy who replied to you is saying the same thing as in Iceland and Australia restrictive gun laws to outlawing them and school shootings aren't happening in either place. That says something ..America isn't doing the right thing cause those with the most money and their conflicting views rule over stopping the insanity that almost everyone in Iceland I spoke to said America is scary place cause of our guns/school shootings. I now agree yet before putting mysejf in another culture didn't care too much that's just how it was here to me previously.
This video from American idol where a contestant went thru a school shooting further hits home for me ..school shootings are a pathetic part of American life https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slhz5ZM2x94&t=310s
> There are no school shootings yet here there's almost one a day it seems.
To those saying "but Iceland is tiny" and "there are 400k-person communities in the US with no history of school shootings", here are the stats for countries with the most school shootings (total incidents Jan 2009-May 2018)[1]:
United States — 288
Mexico — 8
South Africa — 6
Nigeria & Pakistan — 4
Afghanistan — 3
Brazil, Canada, France — 2
Azerbaijan, China, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Kenya, Russia, & Turkey — 1
Calculating per-capita numbers is left as an exercise for the reader.
I said there's one in America almost every day… There was one last week I'm pretty sure and definitely there was one in Nashville yesterday at a Christian school.
Iceland is indeed tiny, and that's a benefit… Too many people in America with too many conflicting views to ever make it safe like Iceland
I have never been out of the US and experience another culture… It was eye-opening
Live in NYC. Large cheese pizza near me is typically >$20. More depending on additional toppings. Single data point, for sure, but I suspect your prices might be outdated.
As of late the exchange rates have made it less expensive versus US dollars. Also add on the fact that tax is included in restaurant prices and there isn't tipping it honestly is pretty close to a moderate higher cost of living area in the US.
This is based off of my experience going in September of 2022.
I'm talking about ordering a pizza and carrying it out as I did at durum.is. It's $21 for a large cheese pizza to pick up and carry out or $25 for a pepperoni pizza that's a lot more money than Baltimore city… Baltimore county and surrounding counties and York County Pennsylvania… Like $10-$15 more. I don't live in a big metropolitan city so only going based on what I know.
A German friend I met who lives in Iceland says he can only eat dominoes because they offer cheap deals. .
The funny thing is. Iceland used to have a lot more vegetation and trees. They were simply cut down for the population of humans to thrive. However there are some projects that are already having success in trying to bring forestation back to iceland such as shown in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-r2EetCtO0
So basically not much different from a 90-day tourist visa except that you can legitimately remote work which, in practice, there are no real restrictions to doing anyway so long as you're low-profile about it.
And your employer is fine with it, or willing to turn a blind eye. That rules out lots of people working for large companies, particularly in highly regulated industries.
I would have loved to work remotely from Thailand in my previous job, and my previous employer would have been fine with it, had I been able to show them a work visa. Unfortunately, the Thai SMART Visa would have required my employer to have a Thai subsidiary. I could have created my own Thai single proprietorship and perhaps gotten my employer to hire me indirectly via that Thai entity, but at a minimum, that would have required lots of high-level approvals.
I got an email from the Ukrainian authorities (pre-2022) saying they didn't care if I worked remotely for a foreign company on a 90-day on-arrival tourist visa, and that was sufficient for my employer (as long as I didn't visit post-2014 conflict zones). (The Ukrainian ministry's email reply was along the lines of "Why are you asking us? Why would we care if you work remotely as a tourist, as long as you aren't doing any labor that requires a presence in Ukraine?") I worked from Kiev for a couple of months after a couple of high-level approvals.
Here's hoping more countries adopt digital nomad-friendly work visas. Lots of countries currently turn a blind eye, but it's much better to have everything explicit and above-board.
My company is very strict about work permit when working abroad. That rules out most countries for me. Also I find that remote work only makes sense in countries where cost of living is low. I did a bit of remote work in France/Italy, but it feels like throwing money away. Unless you want to rent an apartment on a long lease and cook, it boils down to spending tourist money while being locked in your hotel room.
I considered the Thai visa which has crazy requirements. My income makes me eligible (I believe), but the visa costs $1000+ and you're not even sure to get it.
I'm guessing most employers who wouldn't be fine with employees working in another country on a tourist visa for a few months also wouldn't be OK with them doing so on a work visa at least without lots of paperwork and approvals.
Of course, people who don't require special business visas to enter a country for, say, an event routinely do work when traveling in many cases. I've never done months at a time but I've certainly had ~1 month trips in Europe that were some combination of business and pleasure.
I’d guess it also doesn’t as staying in the Schengen area (aka free movement area the includes most of Europe, including Iceland). An American visiting as a “tourist” can’t spend consecutive 90 days in Iceland & then hop over to Spain, as that could take them over the 90 day Schengen visit limitation.
Aliens from US generally find bullshit english-teaching work visas in eastern europe they go to few weeks and then get two years of schengen visa.
Knew two guys from Indiana abusing this trick, they complained 24/7 how difficult it was for them to live in Europe (jobless) legally, but never hear them mention it's the same for foreigners in their country.
I suppose it also allows one to stay for >90 days (but <=180 days) if one so inclines.
Personally, having yet to visit Iceland, and hearing from friends who have that it's not the cheapest place, plus its northernly latitude, 90 days for me to first scout it out is more than enough for me.
I would guess that there isn't a lot of overlap between "90 days isn't nearly enough" and "no interest in this being an open-ended sort of thing" people.
Only 180 days (and only if you're currently in your home country)? That's pretty lame and makes it not really worth it. If I want to live in a country on a remote worker visa, I'd want it to be at least 1yr minimum in length. As it stands, that's barely any better/different than a normal tourist visa.
Most countries allow you to do some remote work on a tourist visa. Banning people from checking work email is simply untenable if you want tourism.
UK for example has a fairly explicit line: “The applicant must not receive payment from a UK source for any activities undertaken in the UK.”
The idea of someone working fully remotely gets tricky as for example the US wants you to pay US taxes if you’ve made more than 3k/year while working in the US.
Having visited Iceland previously, I'd love to work there over the summer.
> you can show a foreign income of ISK 1,000,000 per month or ISK 1,300,000 if you also apply for a spouse or cohabiting partner.
> you do not need a visa to enter the Schengen area
Unfortunately this ^ disqualifies me, despite meeting the income requirements, since I need a visa to enter the Schengen region. This seems to be an odd requirement, they are already issuing a visa, why require people to have powerful passports as well ?
Also discussed in this subthread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35344437. My take (having been there two weeks and done all the tours and seen all the things) is that you'd need (less than?) half of that income requirement for a normal comfort level that I also have in my home country (currently Germany).
It's not a cheap country but 7k/month as "minimum income" is not a requirement out of necessity or kindness.
Because Iceland is a member of the Schengen zone. It's possible to travel between countries in the Schengen area without going through border control (although I don't know about the specifics of travelling to/from Iceland).
That was part of my earlier point, they are already issuing a visa, and a visa to Iceland is a Schengen Visa. This seems to imply that they only want nationals from certain countries.
Contrast this with Spain's digital nomad program, where they don't require someone to have a powerful passport, all they seem to care about is having a job outside spain.
I traveled from US to Iceland to France without knowing this and honestly thought I somehow bypassed customs when I got to France. So, this is correct you can go from Iceland to other Schengen zone countries without any checks (I didn't show my passport or do customs at all)
No, being in EEA means EU citizens can _live_ there without working for up to 3 months, but after 3 months they need to be employed. It's the same rule as in the rest of EU countries.
Brits, Americans, and various other citizens can live there for 3 months fine.
For working though EU citizens can just rock up and get a job
"If you are a citizen from a state outside the European Economic Area (EEA), the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), or the Faroe Islands, you must obtain a residence and a work permit before working in Iceland. "
Certain foreign nationals are exempt from obtaining a temporary work permit. This includes citizens from countries within the European Economic Area, countries within the European Free Trade Agreement or from the Faroe Islands."
"EU/EEA citizens do not need a residence and a work permit in Iceland and may stay in Iceland for up to three months without registering and moving domicile to Iceland. The relocation to Iceland is quite simple in terms of bureaucratic related issues for EU/EEA citizens.
EU/EEA citizen staying longer than three months an Icelandic ID number is needed and change of domicile is required."
Which I believe is the same as moving to an EU country. Certainly my parents had to register for things like EKA and some other things when they moved to Greece back in 2001. I suspect moving State in the US is similar (otherwise how would you know to pay state income tax?)
I could work fine in a bar in Greece during the summer without any of that as I was only there for a couple of months, and this was before my rights had been removed.
Compare the process with the UK
"
All non-EU/EEA citizens require a residence- and a work permit in Iceland and need to apply through Iceland Directorate of Immigration (DOI).
....
The Immigration Process
Employment confirmed
Welcome Center contacts the newly recruited employee.
Employee accumulates required documents for immigration purposes and keeps the Welcome Center updated on the process.
Employee sends all the required documents to Iceland, to the Welcome Center.
Welcome Center submits the documents to the Directorate of Immigration and keeps the applicant updated on any developments.
Welcome Center notifies the applicant of the accepted application and the preliminary issued permit.
Employee applies for a D-visa to Iceland at a relevant embassy - if applicable, depends on citizenship.
Welcome meeting upon arrival at the University of Iceland, Welcome Center.
Employee registers formally into Iceland through Directorate of Immigration - appointment and a photoshoot.
Employee undergoes a medical checkup - if applicable, depending on citizenship.
"
But at least Brits get to enjoy those brexit freedoms.
I see these visas and I understand there are some circumstances where maybe you have to get one (employer letting you work remote, maybe certain kinds of rental housing) but honestly I don't understand why they have any requirements, and opposed to just asking an otherwise admissible person to declare they're there for work. Like others, I can already go for 90 days if I want for tourism, just with my passport. I don't have to prove income or insurance or submit a photo. What real risk are they taking by just letting my say I'm coming for 6 months to work remotely? All the "remote" visas I've seen are similar, and it all just seems like some silly think bureaucrats dreamed up because they can't let go of control, that really is pointless.
It's very straightforward: they don't want poor or middle-class foreigners in their country. They want rich people. So that the rich people can live in expensive housing, eat at expensive restaurants, and pump their riches into Iceland's economy.
This is why the minimum barrier to entry into this program is having an income of ISK 1,000,000 per month, which means that you need a salary of over €80 000.
Additionally, they also don't want foreigners to actually settle in their country, which is why there is a 180-day ceiling. The purpose of this program is to have rich foreigners come for a spell, spend lots of money, then go away. They're being very transparent about this.
Iceland is in Schengen, so foreigners living in a country which is also a member have the ability to move to Iceland and settle here. So foreigners are welcome here. So much so that 14% of all residents are foreign and that does obviously not count those who have received citizenship.
> That’s less than the median household income in a half-dozen states.
That's nice. Can you guess how many states there are in the world?
The fact that you're using the claim that a minority percentage in a single country makes a large amount of money as an argument for the claim that an 80.000 salary is not rich, is a stereotypically American myopic outlook at the world.
> $80k/year is rich? That’s less than the median household income in a half-dozen states.
(1) EUR 80,000 > USD 80,000 (about USD 86,700)
(2) We’re discussing individual wages not household income of households where the average is >1 wage-earner.
(3) The highest US state median wage is a little over USD 80k, and less than EUR 80k.
(4) The US is a rich country, so, yes, median wage earners in the US as a whole (much less the median wage earner of the state scoring highest on that metric) are rich by any non-US-specific standard.
Limits on numbers. Welcoming you as a tourist and welcoming you indefinitely are not the same thing. It's not a big population so wouldn't take a very large number of arrivals to impact public services like healthcare and schools.
If you don't have population growth, you can't replace the old generation fast enough.
Eventually your retirement system will crumble. Not tomorrow, not next year, but maybe a couple decades from now. And it's not something you can fix in a year or two.
There are several nationalities belonging to the third world for whom this is a godsend (not this one particularly, but others in the region). As an Indian national, I have to undergo a painful process to procure a tourist visa, which is often valid only for a few days. Something like this which let's me work remotely for clients based over Europe and North America, and let's me travel through Schengen without any stress is really a game changer.
Correct. It is very explicitly targeting tourists who want to stay for more than 90 days, up to 180 days. Basically this is a convoluted method of extending tourism to rich tourists for a longer (specifically, a double) period of time to have them pump more of their money into the country. That's all.
I don't know why these countries do everything to _not_ attract human capital - limitation of 180 days means no-go for me. Maybe I would love to explore a new country for a couple of years, and settle down there with my salary component of ~200k instead of SFBA. But I need my kids to stay at least 1 year in their schools, and 2 years if they like it. And the way to become a resident.
It's so easy for them just to attract high-skilled labor everyone is fighting for. But nope, they pretty much say: "We know you're skilled because we have requirement of 90k/year, but we don't want skilled workers to be able to stay here, because go somewhere else". Well, ok, Iceland..
> But nope, they pretty much say: "We know you're skilled because we have requirement of 90k/year, but we don't want skilled workers to be able to stay here, because go somewhere else". Well, ok, Iceland..
Correct. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, especially as they are being very overt about it. They don't want foreigners settling into their country. They want foreigners coming in for a short time, pumping money into it, then buggering off.
What's the incentive here? A rotating cast of high income earners paying state and local taxes without the benefit the pension system(s)? The country has about 1.73 births per woman with a barely positive net migration. Maybe they should think about getting interested people on a citizenship path.
> Maybe they should think about getting interested people on a citizenship path
One thing you'll find out is that the EU member states (along with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.) are really not very friendly or welcoming in terms of "path to citizenship".
One thing I'd like to see actually is open immigration and potentially more free trade between the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK. I'd add Ireland but I think EU status would be a problem.
> along with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.) are really not very friendly or welcoming in terms of "path to citizenship".
About 30% of New Zealand and Australia’s populations are immigrants. I don’t think we could let many more in! As a comparison, the US is about 15% population of immigrants - and look at the stink over there about there being too many! The places with more immigrants than NZ/Oz by percentage are mostly either small island populations, or Arab states (where you are not actually an immigrant, since you don’t have citizenship rights, and slave labour conditions are rife).
One resulting issue is that some major parts of the NZ/Oz housing markets are already some of the most unaffordable in the world (think San Franscisco, but earning less so even less affordable)! The five most expensive cities in the world by unaffordability are Hong Kong, Vancouver, Sydney, Auckland, Toronto : e.g. Sydney: average monthly income of $6,100 with median house price of $1.4 million. Auckland median house price is $1.1 million, whereas the average individual monthly income is $4,269. We have the land, we just need to build a lot of houses to keep up.
In Australia, 29.1% of residents (ie, citizens or permanent residents) were born overseas[1] in 2021 (down from 29.8% in 2020 due to COVID meaning less new permanent residents).
Net migration was 171,000 in 2021-22[2] and there were 167,000 newly conferred citizens (not counting native births)[3].
Top 5 countries of birth for Australian citizens born overseas were: England, China, India, New Zealand, Philippines. Top 5 new citizen countries of birth were: India, UK, Philippines, NZ, Pakistan.
Exactly. "Resident" is either a citizens or a permanent resident.
This is why I also gave the numbers for number of new citizens vs new new migration. We can see from that that roughly 97.5% of permanent residents become citizens.
In 2018, 36000 people gained citizenship, and the population was about 5 million. Hard to say how the numbers stack up as it is an integral over lifetimes and some people won’t stay. Also some people will just obtain residency and stick with that. I don’t think seasonal workers would be classified as immigrants.
> look at the stink over there about there being too many!
There isn’t much of one, tbh. I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone claiming we have too many immigrants outside of actual right-wing extremists (not even Trump-level, more like 4chan-level).
Lots of people think illegal immigration should be cracked down on, or resent accommodations to people from outside the dominant culture (e.g. bilingual signage). However, these are not the same thing as thinking there are too many immigrants, full stop. Furthermore, even these lesser forms of xenophobia are regarded as solidly right-wing beliefs rather than being part of the political mainstream.
The path from Permanent Resident to Citizen in Canada is pretty straightforward in my eyes and most Permanent Residents eventually do become Citizens [0].
Given that there are many pathways available for people to immigrate to Canada and Canada also looking to increase immigration in the coming years I am not sure what you mean by "not friendly or welcoming".
Are you referring to the fact that there is a selection process in place and not everyone may qualify due to it?
I do admire Canada’s open mindedness. Anyone who completes an undergraduate degree in a Canadian university is eligible to apply for a work visa which rapidly leads to PR status. And, that converts to citizenship pretty quickly.
I don't know about other countries, but immigration targets in Canada are trending towards attracting 500,000 immigrants per year by 2025. Just because we have alot of openings doesn't mean it's easy though... there are several paths, and most of them are designed to favour folks who will integrate well socially and economically (and that doesn't just mean rich white folks, it means more along the lines of skilled labour and the means to sustain your family while they get settled).
Iceland has a steady population growth due to immigration already. That said there has been talk in the last month or so of changing up the visa situation to make it easier to recruit tech workers outside of the EEA:
OK, I dare you to support replacement immigration / colonization against any native people who are not Europeans. The world agreed that it was a horrible thing when it was done against American natives, against Aboriginals and against other people. Why do so many cheer on doing the same thing against European natives?
Slavers used to defend the trans-Atlantic trafficking with the argument that the American natives were too few, didn't produce enough and didn't breed enough. I hear a lot of similar arguments being used against native European peoples today. Should we always repeat history?
Allowing immigration is a long way short of the dystopian scenario painted by the racism of the replacement theory. Iceland willingly calling for people to move there is nothing like the European colonization of the Americas.
The commenter I responded to literally called for replacement. It is a down right evil policy, responsible for an immense amount of suffering and loss throughout the world. But of course it has been a favorite of various rulers - and they've always had some clergy handy to drum up support for the cause.
It was the killing people and colonization that was bad. A country letting people move there is not either of those things, that is a terrible argument. No one is saying "Let's force Iceland at gunpoint to let everyone in".
Every country having open borders would be cool though.
If every country had open borders then in a few generations every country would be essentially culturally identical (and English-speaking), massively reducing the cultural diversity and vibrancy of the human race as a whole.
I doubt "vibrancy" would be lower. And there are major cultural differences within countries, including countries that have existed for a very long time. I agree that cultures would merge more, but that is not a bad thing. The same thing is going to happen over a longer time scale with closed borders anyway.
People have the right to want to preserve their culture rather than becoming globalized. The US has chosen the path of being a melting pot and that is great for us but Icelanders have every right not to make the same decision if they don’t want to.
>A rotating cast of high income earners paying state and local taxes without the benefit the pension system(s)?
Did you expect something different?
That's literally the goal of every "DiGiTaLnOmAd" (you're a migrant worker, dickhead) visa scheme everywhere in the world. They want short-term renters eating out every night and racking up airport fees.
edit: unless you're super-wealthy in which case "Velkominn, Willkommen, いらっしゃいませ, Bem-vindo, 欢迎, Bienvenu, Tere tulemast, etc...."
You'd damn sure better be earning well over 7,000 USD a month. Iceland is so expensive, and I'd imagine those prices have gone up with inflation. Even the locals have a secondary pricelist. It's a nice place to visit, but I'm not sure the cost is worth the living.
Iceland is too expensive I would imagine.. go Latin America or Southeast Asia, problem is that it's hard to get to stay there long-term unless you go through the bureaucracy.. some expats have speculated for years that America uses its influence overseas to prevent Americans from moving overseas permanently to cheap Nations like the third world
I'm curious. What prevents an American from living in Argentina long term? I believe the country is quite friendly in terms of long term visitors. Have you done some research on that?
The speculation says that America uses its power to coerce cheap Nations to throw up bureaucratic obstacles and restrictions that prevent Americans from moving overseas easily.. America protects this financial capital for moving overseas but it also protects social capital for moving overseas by keeping Americans here and stopping them from taking their savings and moving to cheap countries and therefore robbing America of social capital... Let me be specific.. it would financially benefit third world countries to allow Americans with money to move in easily and without restrictions without Visa time limits and so forth.. and when I say any American with money I mean any person who's had a job and worked and saved the money from the job... I'm not talking about rich people ...
the idea is that America uses its power against the third world Nations to coerce them to throw up restrictions to moving easily overseas
No, the "bureaucratic obstacles" are often what people living with these countries deal with on a normal basis. The only thing you're adding to that is being on a visa instead of a citizenship.
Don't forget many third world countries are former colonies of western countries and don't necessarily want large amounts of westerns residing there again.
> it would financially benefit third world countries to allow Americans with money to move in easily and without restrictions without Visa time limits and so fort
It financially benefits third world countries when Americans with money _try_ to move in. Via bribery etc. Also many of these countries have high end hotels where they can get the same money from somebody who stays a week or two and leaves and never makes a fuss about local issues!
You should see what "bureaucratic obstacles" exist for people in third world countries that want to visit USA. The US tourist visa has no publically-known requirements beyond "shows intent to return home after trip". This is quite arbitrary and the visa officers at embassies abroad are given the final say in visa issuance. (To be fair, if there were bank balance requirements, people would both photoshop their statements and ask for friends/family to borrow the amount to pad their account before their visa interview). If you are rejected, they only tell you to "try again later" without ever telling you the reason of rejection. People who can afford to visit relatives and intend on returning at the end of their trip will have their visa applications denied on a regular basis. There's just so many applicants to be more through.
The only way I can think of that America coerces its citizens to stay, is that you still need to pay income taxes regardless of where you live.
I think the biggest hurdle is the Americans themselves, thinking that living in South America would be like living in a slum, or in the middle of the jungle. I assure you, you'll find a great life living in Buenos Aires, or in many cities within Argentina, that have nothing to envy from many American small cities.
It's not NYC or Dallas, of course. And you'll have to do without many gadgets, and learn to live in a turbulent economy, which can be tough for some people. But the reward is that if you earn USD and spend in ARS, the economy won't touch you at all. It might even make it easier.
If that was true, wouldn’t countries that are hostile towards the US like North Korea, Iran, Russia, Cuba, etc. be enacting visa regimes to undermine the US?
Having dealt with various nations’ bureaucracies, I’m more inclined to believe most simply haven’t been convinced it is worth their administrative overhead trouble to capture the financial benefits of welcoming digital nomads for longer stays. They’re quite well aware digital nomads exist and many desire longer stays. It is still considered a pretty niche population compared to regular tourism and likely not worth catering to yet. With RTO spreading, it likely will remain so until WFM becomes more mainstream in the future.
It makes much sense, considering that European emigrants to America were the force that conquered Europe during WWII. Maybe the American government doesn't want that to happen to them.
That they don't like you to get a salary in USD and the Peso has crazy inflation, would be one consideration. But then I've heard Buenos Aires can be quite like any rich country city (probably for most people here: normal city) and life's definitely a lot cheaper there so it might be worth it
That’s likely due to the high cost of living in Iceland. You can live cheap-ish anywhere, but it takes a bit of local knowledge to do that, and I suspect the cheaper housing options in Iceland are not what most digital nomads seek. One data point, in spring of 2021, I saw 1kg of cherries (imported from the Netherlands) in the store for the equivalent of 25 USD.
I happen to have my stack of receipts from my Iceland trip in front of me (was cleaning out some stuff), and my "bearnaise burger & fries" from the "N1" gas station was 1770 ISK or about $17.50 CAD, $13USD. Let's see what else I have here.. Tenderloin steak from Strikið in Akureyri was 5990 ISK or $59CAD, $44USD, Creme Brulee was 1990 ISK so $20 CAD or $14.50 USD. (btw Strikið was absolutely delicious, 100% recommended).. Indeed Iceland is pretty expensive, though not too bad IMO. I'm surprised how ultra-high the requirement is to be granted this VISA, though.
While this seems awesome (and I do hope to make use of it) I do find it a little funny that an application for a visa for remote work must be submitted by snail mail.
The limit to 6 months is pretty disappointing.
Also the 1,000,000 ISK monthly salary for workers in the Schengen area is pretty restrictive, except for Switzerland, Norway, not that many people earn that level of salary.
You can stay 90 days on a visitor visa and just leave for a weekend every 90 days and start the clock over. When I was on my last stint as a "digital nomad" I did this a couple times over in a couple different countries. There really isn't any way to get "caught". Your host country doesn't care because you're importing money and spending it there. The country where you have your job doesn't care because you're still paying income tax there. Only catch is you have to keep a residency in your country of origin. Also, of course, your employer needs to be cool with it, but truthfully if you're remote anyways they can't really tell where you live as long as you're online during the expected hours. Although for me I thought it better to be honest/transparent.
All of the above assumes US country of origin, but I'm sure it'd work the same with many countries.
> Greenland and the Faroe Islands are not included in the Schengen Area. However, persons travelling between the Faroe Islands, Greenland and the Schengen Area are not subject to border checks.[29] The list of countries whose citizens require a visa for Greenland or the Faroe Islands is the same as for the Schengen Area,[30][31] but a Schengen visa will not allow the holder access to either territory, only a Danish visa stamped with either "Valid for the Faroe Islands" or "Valid for Greenland", or both.[32]
> just leave for a weekend every 90 days and start the clock over.
Regularly leaving an island ~500km away from the nearest city (where you might go through immigration and get your passport stamped or however they check this) is more involved than the usual "just do a day trip to the neighbors" situation. Not impossible but a cost to factor in.
In my quest to not fly whenever reasonably possible, I looked at ferry options to Iceland and I don't remember the results but the short of it is that we flew.
I was expecting a long term visa to be for longer than 90 (or 180) days. Iceland doesn't seem like the easiest place to zip in and out of, and folks moving there to work will probably want to stay for a while.
Late to the comments here, but I was literally the first guy to use this program when Iceland unveiled it in 2021. I moved there in January 2021, and lived there for 9 months. I was interviewed by the NY Times and NBC about it.
I see a lot of people saying Iceland is expensive - well, if you're coming from California, it's not that bad. I'd say it's comparable, aside from the gas/diesel prices.
If you have any questions about the process or living in Iceland, I'd be glad to help. Email's on my profile.
We shipped our 4x4 to Iceland and went off roading for several months while working remotely. Truly an incredible lifetime experience that I would recommend to anyone if they love nature. Unfortunately I have never really been able to see the beauty of my urban surroundings again ever since spending all that time in Iceland.
Icelandic flora is very vulnerable and driving off roads will cause sever damage that will last for decades. It is highly illegal to drive off roads except for glaciers and beaches. In fact there is a huge social stigma against off road driving. Tourists that get caught regularly get ridiculed on national television, and rightly so.
No you were tourists, that spent their time on an expedition. I don’t understand what you have against that term. However if you did indeed stay on the mountain roads, than I advice you to please be careful with your vocabulary. Off road driving is a huge problem in Iceland, and we don’t need people reading posts like these on HN, going to Iceland thinking they can drive off the roads.
Iceland is such a beautiful country. I loved my visit there. I long for the day energy is cheap and clean enough everywhere that we can have hot tubs and pools in every town in every country like in Iceland.
Would be interesting to know what the most expensive places in the universe are if you could get to other citilizations and trade currencies with them. Probably at least an order of magnitude more, discounting the cost to get there.
Windy: can confirm. It's not that cold, like, it gets just as cold in a lot of countries a lot further south, but the wind is what kills you if you don't wear enough layers. One of the things I also didn't like about Amsterdam: always windy.
Desolated: I wouldn't say that, but then we went at a time where the F-roads were closed so we didn't go into the interior. When driving around, it was very rare not to see another soul for so much as an hour even in late autumn. For the country with iirc the lowest population density of Europe, this surprised me a lot. I thought that it was a Dutch and Rhine-area feature not to be able to get away from other humans.
Bare nature and ice features (cold): that is what you go to Iceland for! If you aren't into that, either you picked the wrong place or you've picked an expensive place to pick up on that! I can definitely accept the wind for how cool the nature is in Iceland.
Southern Europe, on the other hand, is where I'd not want to go, at least not outside of winter! Heard of the first forest fire in Spain last week already, no thank you.
I was delighted by the whales off the coast, and the northern lights felt like a spiritual event, but (at least according to lore) the Vikings invented the modern new year celebration by considering it a good enough time for everyone to dispose of their old flares and replace them with new, and so new year's in Iceland was better than the greatest fireworks show I'd ever witnessed, despite exactly 0% of the fireworks having been municipally provided. It felt like every member of every home had spent their life savings on fireworks and were setting them all off for hours. Impossible to describe, but here's some drone footage (not mine) that captures about 10 minutes of what went on for hours, and the experience from the city center on the ground was even more encompassing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAnQ7ECC2LA&t=245s