But how is it any different from any other foreigner who would want to get a residency visa, to go beyond the Schengen 90-day limit?
They'd be spending money too. Unless there was some data showing that digital nomads spent x % more than typical visa holders, not sure why that would be an advantage to these countries.
Of course they wouldn't compete in the local labor market, because they have been vetted for having jobs and enough income, probably their own health insurance too.
But I thought every residency visa applicant had to meet these requirements.
A digital nomad may very well (most of which you noted):
- pay taxes to the host country,
- come with their own health insurance, and
- spend money in the local economy through typical life expenses like rent/mortgage, dining, entertainment, etc.
But they probably don't receive (or need) access to social/government services like education, healthcare, and childcare. Also, this type of visa probably has no path towards residency or citizenship: it's a short term, "you come to our country to work, you're already educated enough to have your own job, you pay some taxes and spend some money without utilizing too many social/government services, and experience the soft power of our culture." What could be better [for the host country]?
Of course, the terms vary for each country's form of this kind of visa. E.g. Maybe maximum duration is different, or maybe income requirements differ, etc.
So how is this different than a residency visa? IMO, it's essentially a longer-term visitors visa where there are guarantees the applicant can support him/herself through working at a non-local job. Then, at the end of the visa, the country and the visitor part ways (unlike a resident visa), no strings attached (probably). So there are fewer obligations on each party, and presumably that serves a growing need.
(My two cents.)