America’s Worst Cities For Retirees
When planning for retirement, you may find yourself hoping to save money and dream of making a fresh start in an exciting new place.
Moving to another city, however, can involve a lot of unknowns: will you fit in? To make friends? Can you afford it? What about the weather?
This analysis may help: WalletHub recently ranked 182 US cities based on their appeal to retirees. Website analysts based their recommendations on measures in four broad categories: affordability, operations, health care, and quality of life.
They evaluated dozens of parameters, such as public transportation, crime rates, weather, and access to entertainment venues.
We focused on the bottom of the rankings. Below are the cities, ranked from worst to worst, that WalletHub finds the least retiree friendly.
See if you agree that these are indeed the worst places to retire.
General classification: n ° 173 out of 182 cities
Arlington scored poorly, especially in the activities category. For a number of people, retirement is about fishing, and WalletHub finds few fishing opportunities in Arlington, ranking it third out of 182 worst cities based on the number of fishing facilities per capita.
There are plenty for sports fans, however. Arlington is home to the MLB Texas Rangers, with home games at Globe Life Field. The city is also home to the AT&T Stadium, where the NFL Dallas Cowboys play their home games.
Jersey City, New Jersey
General classification: n ° 174 out of 182 cities
Jersey City’s low affordability ranking (No 176) helps drive down the city’s overall ranking.
However, the city boasts of having one of the most culturally diverse populations in the country.
General classification: n ° 175 out of 182 cities
Motor City takes a hit here, in part because such a small percentage of its employees are 65 or older. In fact, based on this particular metric, WalletHub ranks Detroit as the worst of the 182 cities included in the analysis.
This measure, and Detroit’s low ranking in the quality of life category (# 177), helps the city take the 175 place overall.
General classification: n ° 176 out of 182 cities
This Washington city’s location – across the Columbia River from Portland, Oregon – can be pleasant for commuters. But is Vancouver a great place for retirees? WalletHub says no.
Clark County, which includes Vancouver, touts its affordability compared to other major cities in the region, such as Portland and Seattle. But WalletHub sees it differently, giving Vancouver particularly low marks for affordability, ranking it 177th in this category.
General classification: n ° 177 out of 182 cities
Wichita is more affordable than Vancouver, Washington. But WalletHub still reverses its ranking for the local quality of life of retirees, placing Wichita No. 178 in that category.
Rancho Cucamonga, California
General classification: n ° 178 out of 182 cities
Fifth from the bottom of this list of 182 cities, Rancho Cucamonga, located east of Los Angeles, scored low in part for its (lack of) activities.
WalletHub finds few amenities for retirees here. The “activities” in this study include such things as fishing, golf, museums, book clubs, art galleries, senior citizens’ centers, music, bingo, and the availability of educational opportunities. adult volunteering.
General classification: n ° 179 out of 182 cities
Spokane County is one of the fastest growing counties in the United States. The population grew 14.5% between 2010 and 2020, KREM2 TV reports, citing the US Census Bureau.
In the city of Spokane in particular, affordability is not great, according to this study, and Spokane has failed to impress WalletHub analysts for its quality of life, healthcare and retiree activities. . The city has not come close to the top 100 in any of these four categories.
3. Bridgeport, Connecticut
General classification: n ° 180 out of 182 cities
The median value of homes in Bridgeport is rising rapidly, helping the city achieve a low affordability rating. As of this writing, Zillow estimated the price of a typical home to be over $ 281,000, which is 28.7% more than a year earlier.
Newark, New Jersey
General classification: n ° 181 out of 182 cities
The most populous city in New Jersey scores particularly poorly for affordability and quality of life, ranking 171st out of 182 in these two categories.
That’s not all: WalletHub also rings Newark’s rank for healthcare (# 102). It is only for city activities that this study ranks Newark average.
San Bernardino, California
General classification: n ° 182 out of 182 cities
How’s it going in the worst city for retirees?
Affordability isn’t great in San Bernardino. In fact, the cost of living is low in San Bernardino – compared to the rest of Southern California, that is. Compared to the national average, however, the cost of living is 18% higher.
However, San Bernardino does particularly poorly in WalletHub’s other three categories: healthcare, quality of life and activities for retirees.
Disclosure: The information you read here is always objective. However, sometimes we receive compensation for clicking on links in our stories.
I like the article