A lot of organizations want to tell people where to, and where not to, retire. Some overlap usually exists between the conclusions the various studies come up with, but there are always surprises, too.
WalletHub, the financial educational and research organization, considered affordability, quality of life, the number of seniors in the population, recreational activities for seniors, health care and a few other variables to decide the areas where seniors should not look for an easy retirement.
Following are the 10 least desirable retirement destinations out of 150 metropolitan areas and a reason or two why each was ranked at the bottom. The worst is listed last. Click here to see WalletHub's Top 10 places to retire.The entiire study is available here.
No. 10. Detroit, Mich.
Ranked among the bottom for overall quality of life and health care.
No. 9 Worcester, Mass.
Ranked poorly on affordability, recreational activities for seniors and quality of life. The city did particularly badly for health care.
No. 8 Boston, Mass.
Ranked among the bottom for affordability and quality of life.
No. 7 Chicago, Ill.
Ranked near the bottom for affordability, quality of life and health care.
No. 6 Yonkers, N.Y.
Placed poorly for affordability, recreational activities for seniors and health care.
No. 5 New York City, N.Y.
Ranked near the bottom for affordability and health care.
No. 4 Aurora, Ill.
Placed poorly for affordability, activities and health care.
No. 3 Providence, R.I.
Was dead last for affordability and near the bottom for health care.
No. 2 Jersey City, N.J.
Ranked near the bottom in all four main categories.
No. 1 Newark, N.J.
Ranked near the bottom in all four main categories.