Unfortunately not everyone can look forward to an easy and breezy retirement. Americans are working more years compared to other generations. In 2015, 21% of workers expected to retire at age 65, but only 9% actually were able to do so, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute’s latest Retirement Confidence Survey.

But retirement can also be impacted by the city that a worker lives in. WalletHub's Richie Bernardo presents the best and worst cities to retire in 2016.

Orlando, Fla., was the best city to retire in overall. It was followed by Tampa, Fla., Scottsdale, Ariz., Miami, and Sioux Falls, S.D.

Providence, R.I., was the worst city to retire in, along with Worcester, Mass., Newark, N.J., Chula Vista, Calif., and Aurora, Ill.

The team at WalletHub gave BUILDER some more insights on the best and worst cities to retire in:

  • Laredo, Texas, has the lowest adjusted cost-of-living index for retired persons, 76.84, which is 2.6 times lower than in New York, the city with the highest, 196.2.
  • Laredo, Texas, has the lowest annual cost of in-home services, $20,592, which is 3.3 times lower than in San Francisco, the city with the highest, $68,640 per month.
  • Scottsdale, Ariz., has the highest percentage of the 65 and older population, 21.1 percent, which is 3.5 times higher than in Fontana, Calif., the city with the lowest, 6.1 percent.
  • Anchorage, Alaska, has the highest percentage of employed people aged 65 and older, 24.0 percent, which is 2.8 times higher than in Detroit, the city with the lowest, 8.5 percent.
Read more >