With only 23 percent of Americans reporting that they are “very confident” they will have enough money for retirement, the personal-finance website WalletHub took a look at cities across the U.S. to gauge which are best and worst cities to retire.
The site rates the Northeast, in particular, as an area to avoid, and not only due to the weather. California also had multiple cities on the “worst” list.
The data set ranged from cost of living to retired taxpayer-friendliness to share of the population aged 65 and older.
Key measurements included affordability, quality of life, health care and availability of recreational activities.
Worst cities to retire
10 Providence, RI
9 Baltimore, MD
8 Rancho Cucamonga, CA
7 Fresno, CA
6 Newark, NJ
5 Bakersfield, CA
4 San Bernardino, CA
3 Warwick, RI
2 Bridgeport, CT
1 Stockton, CA
Not surprising, Florida ranked high for the “best cities” in which retire.
Best cities to retire
10 Cheyenne, WY
9 Minneapolis, MN
8 Cape Coral, FL
7 Fort Lauderdale, FL
6 Denver, CO
5 Miami, FL
4 Charleston, SC
3 Scottsdale, AZ
2 Tampa, FL
1 Orlando, FL
Best vs. worst
Pearl City, Hawaii, has the highest share of the population aged 65 and older, 23.30 percent, which is 3.2 times higher than in Fontana, California, the city with the lowest at 7.20 percent.
Laredo, Texas, has the lowest adjusted cost-of-living index for retirees, 76.28, which is 2.6 times lower than in San Francisco, the city with the highest at 195.49.
Juneau, Alaska, has the highest share of workers aged 65 and older, 28.08 percent, which is 2.8 times higher than in Detroit, the city with the lowest at 10.11 percent.
St. Louis has the most home health care facilities (per 100,000 residents), 49.54, which is 25.7 times more than in Fontana, California, the city with the fewest at 1.93.