12 Worst US Cities for Retirement: 2019

(Related: 12 Best Cities for Retirement: 2019)

A majority of American workers in a recent survey said they were at least somewhat confident they would have enough money to retire comfortably. Some workers who have doubts about their ability to enjoy a comfortable retirement will remain in the workforce, according to WalletHub. The personal-finance website noted that workers this year planned to retire at 65 on average, citing Gallup polling, up from 60 in 1995. Alternatively, retirees may consider moving to a less expensive location where they do not have to sacrifice their lifestyle. WalletHub researchers looked at the retirement friendliness of 182 U.S. cities, including the 150 most populated ones and at least two of the most populated cities in each state, comparing them across four dimensions: affordability, activities, quality of life and health care. They evaluated those dimensions using 46 metrics and grading them on a 100-point scale, with 100 representing the most favorable retirement conditions. The cities at the bottom of the list are wanting in various ways that make them the least friendly retirement venues. For example, Fontana, California, which ranked No. 166, has just two home health care facilities per 100,000 residents, versus 50 facilities per 100,000 residents in St. Louis. Fontana also has the lowest share of residents 65 and older in the country, only 7.2% of the population, suggesting retirees would feel relatively isolated there. Unsurprisingly, San Francisco is not a city for those wanting to stretch their dollars, as it has the highest adjusted cost-of-living index for retirees in the country. Check out the gallery for the 12 least retirement-friendly cities, according to WalletHub. --- Related on ThinkAdvisor:

• We Graded the 12 'Smartest' Cities for Retirement
• 12 Worst States for Military Retirees: 2019
• 12 Worst US Cities to Start a Career