Once you retire, money takes on a brand new meaning. You become keenly attuned to every dollar of your nest egg, balancing things you may have once taken for granted while working, such as traveling, making big purchases and general expenditures.
For those of you with plans to relocate in retirement, your biggest concern might be finding an affordable and desirable place.
That’s why GOBankingRates identified one location in every state that will eat away your savings fast and one place that can provide you a welcome respite from unbearable bills.
See which community in your state you should avoid when you’re getting ready to hang it up, and which one might help you live a richer and more fulfilling retirement.
Alabama
Worst place to retire: Opelika
- Percentage of population over 65: 18.4
- Average home value: $242,175
- Annual expenditures: $46,197
- Livability score: 62
Where to retire instead: Decatur
- Percentage of population over 65: 19
- Average home value: $182,368
- Annual expenditures: $41,921
- Livability score: 74
Arizona
Worst place to retire: Scottsdale
- Percentage of population over 65: 24.6
- Average home value: $866,169
- Annual expenditures: $74,145
- Livability score: 69
Where to retire instead: Surprise
- Percentage of population over 65: 22.8
- Average home value: $423,060
- Annual expenditures: $56,104
- Livability score: 84
Arkansas
Worst place to retire: Hot Springs
- Percentage of population over 65: 21.4
- Average home value: $218,538
- Annual expenditures: $43,016
- Livability score: 62
Where to retire instead: Hot Springs Village
- Percentage of population over 65: 63.3
- Average home value: $279,670
- Annual expenditures: $46,979
- Livability score: 73
California
Worst place to retire: Beverly Hills
- Percentage of population over 65: 22.9
- Average home value: $5,456,590
- Annual expenditures: $251,424
- Livability score: 78
Where to retire instead: Seal Beach
- Percentage of population over 65: 41.6
- Average home value: $1,403,313
- Annual expenditures: $96,357
- Livability score: 77
Colorado
Worst place to retire: Lakewood
- Percentage of population over 65: 16.8
- Average home value: $587,420
- Annual expenditures: $67,731
- Livability score: 66
Where to retire instead: Loveland
- Percentage of population over 65: 20.4
- Average home value: $496,551
- Annual expenditures: $58,711
- Livability score: 83
Connecticut
Worst place to retire: Norwich
- Percentage of population over 65: 17.1
- Average home value: $230,920
- Annual expenditures: $49,743
- Livability score: 68
Where to retire instead: Newington
- Percentage of population over 65: 20.9
- Average home value: $296,929
- Annual expenditures: $55,322
- Livability score: 83
Delaware
Worst place to retire: Hockessin
- Percentage of population over 65: 22.2
- Average home value: $543,015
- Annual expenditures: $65,176
- Livability score: 83
Where to retire instead: Milford
- Percentage of population over 65: 25.8
- Average home value: $307,733
- Annual expenditures: $49,534
- Livability score: 61
Florida
Worst place to retire: Miami Beach
- Percentage of population over 65: 17.1
- Average home value: $2,256,246
- Annual expenditures: $61,161
- Livability score: 69
Where to retire instead: The Villages
- Percentage of population over 65: 85.7
- Average home value: $419,947
- Annual expenditures: $51,463
- Livability score: 79
Georgia
Worst place to retire: Thomasville
- Percentage of population over 65: 17.2
- Average home value: $182,734
- Annual expenditures: $40,826
- Livability score: 64
Where to retire instead: Peachtree City
- Percentage of population over 65: 18.6
- Average home value: $481,231
- Annual expenditures: $60,379
- Livability score: 90
Hawaii
Worst place to retire: Kahului
- Percentage of population over 65: 17.9
- Average home value: $934,860
- Annual expenditures: $81,809
- Livability score: 64
Where to retire instead: Mililani
- Percentage of population over 65: 24.8
- Average home value: $1,030,044
- Annual expenditures: $94,010
- Livability score: 73
Idaho
Worst place to retire: Coeur d’Alene
- Percentage of population over 65: 18.5
- Average home value: $540,423
- Annual expenditures: $59,493
- Livability score: 76
Where to retire instead: Eagle
- Percentage of population over 65: 21.9
- Average home value: $789,340
- Annual expenditures: $78,212
- Livability score: 86
Illinois
Worst place to retire: Wilmette
- Percentage of population over 65: 19.9
- Average home value: $761,015
- Annual expenditures: $81,288
- Livability score: 81
Where to retire instead: Huntley
- Percentage of population over 65: 33.6
- Average home value: $345,817
- Annual expenditures: $56,834
- Livability score: 83
Indiana
Worst place to retire: Granger
- Percentage of population over 65: 16.9
- Average home value: $352,324
- Annual expenditures: $50,472
- Livability score: 85
Where to retire instead: Kokomo
- Percentage of population over 65: 18.6
- Average home value: $138,200
- Annual expenditures: $39,158
- Livability score: 63
Iowa
Worst place to retire: Marshalltown
- Percentage of population over 65: 17.4
- Average home value: $133,143
- Annual expenditures: $38,011
- Livability score: 68
Where to retire instead: Dubuque
- Percentage of population over 65: 18.9
- Average home value: $207,159
- Annual expenditures: $42,756
- Livability score: 79
Kansas
Worst place to retire: Salina
- Percentage of population over 65: 17.2
- Average home value: $163,024
- Annual expenditures: $38,845
- Livability score: 70
Where to retire instead: Hutchinson
- Percentage of population over 65: 17.9
- Average home value: $121,345
- Annual expenditures: $37,542
- Livability score: 70
Kentucky
Worst place to retire: Florence
- Percentage of population over 65: 17.3
- Average home value: $269,785
- Annual expenditures: $48,230
- Livability score: 69
Where to retire instead: Owensboro
- Percentage of population over 65: 18.5
- Average home value: $182,968
- Annual expenditures: $41,817
- Livability score: 73
Louisiana
Worst place to retire: Marrero
- Percentage of population over 65: 18.9
- Average home value: $165,986
- Annual expenditures: $48,595
- Livability score: 65
Where to retire instead: Metairie
- Percentage of population over 65: 20.9
- Average home value: $276,330
- Annual expenditures: $53,966
- Livability score: 82
Maine
Worst place to retire: Bangor
- Percentage of population over 65: 17.1
- Average home value: $233,290
- Annual expenditures: $43,798
- Livability score: 72
Where to retire instead: Lewiston
- Percentage of population over 65: 17.9
- Average home value: $247,453
- Annual expenditures: $44,893
- Livability score: 70
Maryland
Worst place to retire: Annapolis
- Percentage of population over 65: 17.3
- Average home value: $558,850
- Annual expenditures: $63,716
- Livability score: 60
Where to retire instead: Carney
- Percentage of population over 65: 22.7
- Average home value: $299,552
- Annual expenditures: $53,236
- Livability score: 70
Massachusetts
Worst place to retire: Reading
- Percentage of population over 65: 18.7
- Average home value: $780,665
- Annual expenditures: $79,880
- Livability score: 52
Where to retire instead: Peabody
- Percentage of population over 65: 22.9
- Average home value: $611,081
- Annual expenditures: $68,253
- Livability score: 72
Michigan
Worst place to retire: Oak Park
- Percentage of population over 65: 17
- Average home value: $202,422
- Annual expenditures: $50,785
- Livability score: 74
Where to retire instead: Livonia
- Percentage of population over 65: 21.2
- Average home value: $267,383
- Annual expenditures: $51,411
- Livability score: 89
Minnesota
Worst place to retire: Winona
- Percentage of population over 65: 16.9
- Average home value: $205,672
- Annual expenditures: $40,566
- Livability score: 73
Where to retire instead: Minnetonka
- Percentage of population over 65: 20.8
- Average home value: $463,573
- Annual expenditures: $59,754
- Livability score: 86
Mississippi
Worst place to retire: Brandon
- Percentage of population over 65: 17.7
- Average home value: $258,994
- Annual expenditures: $46,875
- Livability score: 86
Where to retire instead: Meridian
- Percentage of population over 65: 16.8
- Average home value: $97,464
- Annual expenditures: $37,385
- Livability score: 85
Missouri
Worst place to retire: Wildwood
- Percentage of population over 65: 18.1
- Average home value: $496,204
- Annual expenditures: $61,944
- Livability score: 77
Where to retire instead: Independence
- Percentage of population over 65: 17.9
- Average home value: $178,312
- Annual expenditures: $44,581
- Livability score: 71
Montana
Worst place to retire: Billings
- Percentage of population over 65: 17.4
- Average home value: $361,273
- Annual expenditures: $48,700
- Livability score: 61
Where to retire instead: Great Falls
- Percentage of population over 65: 19.3
- Average home value: $278,511
- Annual expenditures: $45,571
- Livability score: 64
Nebraska
Worst place to retire: Columbus
- Percentage of population over 65: 16.8
- Average home value: $231,646
- Annual expenditures: $42,860
- Livability score: 85
Where to retire instead: Hastings
- Percentage of population over 65: 17.4
- Average home value: $165,631
- Annual expenditures: $40,618
- Livability score: 85
Nevada
Worst place to retire: Carson City
- Percentage of population over 65: 20.2
- Average home value: $444,790
- Annual expenditures: $57,720
- Livability score: 71
Where to retire instead: Pahrump
- Percentage of population over 65: 31.6
- Average home value: $332,878
- Annual expenditures: $50,003
- Livability score: 62
New Hampshire
Worst place to retire: Rochester
- Percentage of population over 65: 17.4
- Average home value: $336,202
- Annual expenditures: $49,847
- Livability score: 73
Where to retire instead: Concord
- Percentage of population over 65: 17.3
- Average home value: $381,643
- Annual expenditures: $49,951
- Livability score: 82
New Jersey
Worst place to retire: Long Branch
- Percentage of population over 65: 17
- Average home value: $596,124
- Annual expenditures: $66,480
- Livability score: 63
Where to retire instead: Toms River
- Percentage of population over 65: 18.9
- Average home value: $382,023
- Annual expenditures: $54,227
- Livability score: 74
New Mexico
Worst place to retire: Los Lunas
- Percentage of population over 65: 17.9
- Average home value: $262,900
- Annual expenditures: $45,050
- Livability score: 60
Where to retire instead: Alamogordo
- Percentage of population over 65: 18.8
- Average home value: $192,017
- Annual expenditures: $38,532
- Livability score: 72
New York
Worst place to retire: Mount Vernon
- Percentage of population over 65: 17.7
- Average home value: $524,676
- Annual expenditures: $73,310
- Livability score: 55
Where to retire instead: North Tonawanda
- Percentage of population over 65: 18.7
- Average home value: $222,841
- Annual expenditures: $46,458
- Livability score: 87
North Carolina
Worst place to retire: Salisbury
- Percentage of population over 65: 16.9
- Average home value: $230,430
- Annual expenditures: $44,424
- Livability score: 58
Where to retire instead: New Bern
- Percentage of population over 65: 23.2
- Average home value: $237,971
- Annual expenditures: $43,277
- Livability score: 62
North Dakota
Worst place to retire: Wahpeton
- Percentage of population over 65: 17
- Average home value: $194,452
- Annual expenditures: $41,191
- Livability score: 68
Where to retire instead: Valley City
- Percentage of population over 65: 20.4
- Average home value: $154,997
- Annual expenditures: $41,244
- Livability score: 85
Ohio
Worst place to retire: Lancaster
- Percentage of population over 65: 17.8
- Average home value: $219,328
- Annual expenditures: $45,832
- Livability score: 63
Where to retire instead: Parma
- Percentage of population over 65: 19.5
- Average home value: $171,111
- Annual expenditures: $42,547
- Livability score: 86
Oklahoma
Worst place to retire: Yukon
- Percentage of population over 65: 17.3
- Average home value: $246,950
- Annual expenditures: $46,823
- Livability score: 80
Where to retire instead: Bartlesville
- Percentage of population over 65: 18.6
- Average home value: $156,134
- Annual expenditures: $40,983
- Livability score: 73
Oregon
Worst place to retire: Woodburn
- Percentage of population over 65: 17.9
- Average home value: $389,410
- Annual expenditures: $54,227
- Livability score: 64
Where to retire instead: Lake Oswego
- Percentage of population over 65: 21
- Average home value: $920,834
- Annual expenditures: $82,591
- Livability score: 84
Pennsylvania
Worst place to retire: Bethlehem
- Percentage of population over 65: 17.9
- Average home value: $293,679
- Annual expenditures: $49,951
- Livability score: 70
Where to retire instead: Bethel Park
- Percentage of population over 65: 23.9
- Average home value: $267,960
- Annual expenditures: $51,255
- Livability score: 94
Rhode Island
Worst place to retire: Newport
- Percentage of population over 65: 19.1
- Average home value: $827,327
- Annual expenditures: $73,884
- Livability score: 69
Where to retire instead: Warwick
- Percentage of population over 65: 20.5
- Average home value: $340,800
- Annual expenditures: $54,018
- Livability score: 75
South Carolina
Worst place to retire: Myrtle Beach
- Percentage of population over 65: 21.3
- Average home value: $353,361
- Annual expenditures: $45,571
- Livability score: 62
Where to retire instead: Mount Pleasant
- Percentage of population over 65: 17.5
- Average home value: $746,046
- Annual expenditures: $67,105
- Livability score: 86
South Dakota
Worst place to retire: Rapid City
- Percentage of population over 65: 19
- Average home value: $305,252
- Annual expenditures: $49,847
- Livability score: 65
Where to retire instead: Mitchell
- Percentage of population over 65: 20.3
- Average home value: $210,720
- Annual expenditures: $41,609
- Livability score: 76
Tennessee
Worst place to retire: Oak Ridge
- Percentage of population over 65: 17.8
- Average home value: $248,538
- Annual expenditures: $44,320
- Livability score: 71
Where to retire instead: Kingsport
- Percentage of population over 65: 24.7
- Average home value: $194,984
- Annual expenditures: $41,452
- Livability score: 67
Texas
Worst place to retire: Colleyville
- Percentage of population over 65: 17.8
- Average home value: $825,890
- Annual expenditures: $76,491
- Livability score: 89
Where to retire instead: Georgetown
- Percentage of population over 65: 28.8
- Average home value: $467,470
- Annual expenditures: $61,057
- Livability score: 81
Utah
Worst place to retire: Holladay
- Percentage of population over 65: 18.5
- Average home value: $780,515
- Annual expenditures: $73,154
- Livability score: 75
Where to retire instead: Saint George
- Percentage of population over 65: 22.7
- Average home value: $507,391
- Annual expenditures: $56,208
- Livability score: 76
Virginia
Worst place to retire: Petersburg
- Percentage of population over 65: 16.8
- Average home value: $248,762
- Annual expenditures: $41,817
- Livability score: 59
Where to retire instead: Danville
- Percentage of population over 65: 20.3
- Average home value: $114,669
- Annual expenditures: $35,977
- Livability score: 74
Washington
Worst place to retire: Des Moines
- Percentage of population over 65: 17.5
- Average home value: $580,113
- Annual expenditures: $68,826
- Livability score: 70
Where to retire instead: Mercer Island
- Percentage of population over 65: 19.8
- Average home value: $2,192,061
- Annual expenditures: $51,359
- Livability score: 85
West Virginia
Worst place to retire: Huntington
- Percentage of population over 65: 17.2
- Average home value: $105,639
- Annual expenditures: $39,314
- Livability score: 60
Where to retire instead: Wheeling
- Percentage of population over 65: 24
- Average home value: $125,064
- Annual expenditures: $39,627
- Livability score: 71
Wisconsin
Worst place to retire: Caledonia
- Percentage of population over 65: 18.2
- Average home value: $292,132
- Annual expenditures: $50,212
- Livability score: 73
Where to retire instead: Mount Pleasant
- Percentage of population over 65: 22.8
- Average home value: $288,462
- Annual expenditures: $46,562
- Livability score: 85
Wyoming
Worst place to retire: Lander
- Percentage of population over 65: 18.6
- Average home value: $346,255
- Annual expenditures: $50,316
- Livability score: 72
Where to retire instead: Sheridan
- Percentage of population over 65: 19.6
- Average home value: $388,063
- Annual expenditures: $50,785
- Livability score: 83
Jordan Rosenfeld and Jake Arky contributed to the reporting for this article.
In order to find the worst places to spend your golden years and where to retire instead, GOBankingRates first found every city in each state that had both a population over 25,000 and a population of people 65 years and older over 16.8% (the national average) of the total population as sourced from the 2021 American Community Survey conducted by the US Census Bureau. Once these cities were identified for each state, GOBankingRates scored them across the following factors: (1) population over 65 as sourced from the 2021 American Community Survey; (2) percent of total population 65 years and older as sourced from the 2021 American Community Survey; (3) the 2023 average single family residence Zillow home value index as sourced from Zillow’s housing data through February 2023; (4) annual expenditures for a person 65 and older using the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s 2021 consumer expenditure survey, which was then factored out for each city using a cost of living index sourced from Sperling’s Best Places; and (5) a livability score out of 100 as sourced from AreaVibes. All factors were then scored and combined, with the lowest score being best. Once all scores were tabulated, the qualifying city with the highest overall score was deemed that state’s “worst place to spend your golden years” and the city with the lowest score was deemed “where to retire to instead”. For some states, the population requirement was lowered to have a better representation of desirable cities (20,000 for MS, NE, NH and OK; 15,000 for AR, GA, NM; 10,000 for DE; and 5,000 for ND and WY). Alaska and Vermont did not have enough cities to be included in the final list. All data was collected and is up to date as of April 17, 2023.
Photo Disclaimer: Please note photos are for representational purposes only. As a result, some of the photos might not reflect the locations listed in this article.
More From GOBankingRates