The Best and Worst Places for Retirement

[elleng]

'Where is the best place to retire in the United States? It’s complicated.

While New York may offer the best quality of life for retirees, it’s too pricey for many. Alabama may be one of the cheapest places to live, but the quality of health care there leaves a lot to be desired. And while Minnesota may offer the best health care — and a quality of life second only to that in New York — it is also very expensive.

These are among the findings of a recent study by the financial website WalletHub, which ranked the 50 states and the District of Columbia in three categories: affordability, health care and general quality of life. Using 31 metrics and assigning a point value to each, the site then came up with an overall score for each state. Here are the five that ranked best — and the five that ranked the worst.'>>>

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/realestate/the-best-places-for-retirement.html?

[marybourg]

1. They don't seem to take weather

very seriously. Thousands of retired people and farmers from Iowa, Wyoming and North Dakota spend their winters here in Arizona.

[Bayard]

3. Great minds think alike!

And apparently simultaneously.

[WhiteTara]

4. They rank Kansas as 14! They don't take

aesthetics into account either. Yikes, that is a mostly forsaken place. Lawrence is lovely but Pittsburg is truly horrible. Run by the Kocks and republicons too.

[Bayard]

2. Weather

They didn't factor anything but the financials. The four states after FL have harsh winters that would make arthritis miserable, and hard to negotiate a walker thru 3 ft. of snow.

Just sayin'

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

5. In reality, the best and the worst places are going to

be very particular to specific people.

Most such lists start by assuming no one over the age of 40 wants to shovel snow or live in a two story home. Personally, I have no problem with snow and climbing up and down stairs regularly is quite good for you. Especially after knees or hips have been replaced. Clearly this NYT piece overlooks the climate aspect, which is usually the very first consideration. And good for them.

But there are other things that matter a lot besides the three indicators used.

My personal quality of life indicators include wanting to be in a place with a college or university (or two) for the cultural aspects. I also want to be in a place that's politically liberal. I want it to be easy to get around, whether driving, walking, or taking public transportation.

Right now I'm in Santa Fe, which I like despite its ridiculous reputation for being too expensive for any but millionaires. What I don't care for is a lack of public transportation, although I only need to walk a quarter mile to and from a bus stop to get me down to the Plaza here. And since I'm a senior citizen, I only pay 50 cents per ride.

If I ever relocate, and I probably will eventually to be nearer to one or the other of my children, I'll look for a larger city with good public transportation. Portland OR, where one son lives, is very appealing, but the cost of living downtown there is far beyond my means, even though I can afford to live in Santa Fe right now.