Retire in place or head for the shore? Mountain living or more city life? Where should 401(k) participants consider moving when they’re ready to take the plunge? Personal-finance website WalletHub released its report on 2018’s Best & Worst Places to Retire.
“To help Americans plan for a comfortable retirement without breaking the bank, WalletHub compared more than 180 U.S. cities across 46 key measures of affordability, quality of life, health care and availability of recreational activities,” the site says. “The data set ranges from cost of living to retired taxpayer-friendliness to share of the population aged 65 and older.”
Some cities surprise, others not so much. Here’s a rundown, beginning with the good news first.
Best Cities to Retire
- Orlando, FL
- Scottsdale, AZ
- Tampa, FL
- Denver, CO
- Fort Lauderdale, FL
- Charleston, SC
- Miami, FL
- Austin, TX
- Cape Coral, FL
- Tempe, AZ
Worst Cities to Retire
- Fresno, CA
- Modesto, CA
- Jersey City, NJ
- Bakersfield, CA
- Providence, RI
- Stockton, CA
- Baltimore, MD
- Warwick, RI
- Bridgeport, CT
- Newark, NJ
Best and Worst
Scottsdale, Arizona, has the highest share of the population aged 65 and older, 22.4 percent, which is 3.3 times higher than in Fontana, California, the city with the lowest at 6.8 percent.
Laredo, Texas, has the lowest adjusted cost-of-living index for retirees, 76.51, which is 2.5 times lower than in San Francisco, the city with the highest at 192.09.
Columbia, Maryland, has the highest share of workers aged 65 and older, 26.86 percent, which is 2.9 times higher than in Hialeah, Florida, the city with the lowest at 9.31 percent.
St. Louis, Missouri has the most home health care facilities (per 100,000 residents), 45.25, which is 31 times more than in Fontana, California, the city with the fewest at 1.46.