🔍 Read the full analysis: What It Costs To Retire Around The World: I Fact-Checked The Viral $2 Million Graphic on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get hardware and tech essentials delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
TL;DR
A graphic listing retirement costs in 18 countries applies a consistent 25-times-annual-spending formula, but its cost estimates cannot be verified because it provides no sources or definitions. The calculation also omits state pensions and may understate savings needs for people retiring at 50 or 55, whose retirements could last longer than 30 years.
A viral graphic assigning retirement costs to 18 countries uses a consistent calculation, but its spending estimates cannot be independently checked because it provides no source or methodology, according to a November 4 fact-check by Thorsten Meyer. The graphic also omits state pensions and does not say whether its costs cover one person or a couple, making its headline totals difficult to apply to individual retirement plans.
The graphic lists the United States at $80,000 a year and $2 million total, the United Kingdom at $55,000 a year and $1.4 million, Thailand at $24,000 and $600,000, and Kenya at $14,000 and $350,000. Meyer found that each total is approximately 25 times its annual figure, matching the common 4% rule: withdraw 4% of savings in the first year, then adjust withdrawals for inflation. That approach is designed around a retirement of about 30 years.
But the graphic does not identify the source of its annual costs or define the household behind them. It does not say whether the estimates are for a single person or a couple, a renter or homeowner, or whether taxes and health insurance are included. Meyer says those missing assumptions make the figures unverifiable, rather than demonstrably false. As one comparison, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported average 2025 spending of $64,445 for households headed by someone 65 or older; those households averaged 1.7 people, and 78% owned their homes. Households headed by someone aged 55 to 64 spent $85,442 on average.
The graphic also treats all annual spending as if it must come from savings. The source’s calculation using Social Security estimates that a U.S. couple receiving the average benefit for an aged couple would receive $40,260 a year from January 2027. Subtracting that from the graphic’s $80,000 spending figure leaves $39,740 to fund from savings; multiplied by 25, that is about $993,500. This is an illustrative calculation, not a personal forecast: the benefit estimate is an average, and actual eligibility and payments vary.
Pensions Change the Savings Calculation
The difference between total spending and the amount that must come from savings can be substantial. In the U.S. example, counting the stated average Social Security benefit cuts the graphic’s implied savings target from $2 million to about $993,500 under the same 25-times formula. That does not establish what any individual or couple needs; it shows why a retirement-cost chart that leaves out pension income can give an incomplete picture.
The source offers a similar UK illustration. It cites a full new State Pension of £241.30 a week per person, or £25,095.20 a year for two people who qualify for the full rate. Using the European Central Bank reference rates for November 2, 2026, Meyer converts that to about $33,676. Against the graphic’s $55,000 annual estimate, the resulting $21,300 gap would imply roughly $533,000 at 25 times spending. The calculation assumes both people qualify for the full pension; it is not a universal estimate of UK retirement needs.
The figures matter to readers because a single savings total can obscure the roles of public benefits, housing costs, household size, health coverage and retirement age. A country’s lower estimated living costs do not, by themselves, show that a person can legally reside there or afford the required insurance and other expenses.
Products Worth Considering
LG UltraGear 32GX850A-B 32-inch 4K UHD Glossy OLED Gaming Monitor
Ledger Stax Crypto Wallet with Touchscreen
Trezor Safe 5 Crypto Hardware Wallet with Color Touchscreen, Black Graphite
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The 25-times calculation is another way of expressing a 4% initial withdrawal rate: 4% of a portfolio equals one twenty-fifth of it. The source describes the rule as intended for about 30 years, with withdrawals adjusted for inflation after the first year. It does not mean that every retiree will receive the same outcome; the underlying assumptions and market performance affect how long savings last.
Retiring earlier can require a longer funding period. Meyer cites Morningstar’s December 3, 2025, report, The State of Retirement Income: 2025, which estimates a highest starting safe withdrawal rate of 3.9% for 30 years, 3.5% for 35 years and 3.3% for 40 years under its stated base case. Those rates correspond to about 25.6, 28.6 and 30.3 times annual spending. The report’s figures are research estimates, not guarantees, and the supplied source does not include the report’s full assumptions.
The graphic’s country rankings also need caution. Meyer says his own price-level model assigns Costa Rica and Spain the same price level, while the graphic’s annual estimates make Costa Rica 42% cheaper. That comparison does not establish which estimate is correct; it highlights that the graphic gives no method readers can inspect. The source also points to visa financial requirements as a separate cost of relocating: it says the Mexican consulate in Las Vegas asks for $4,630 a month in income per person for temporary residence, roughly twice the graphic’s $28,000 annual Mexico estimate when converted to a monthly amount. Rules depend on the application and consulate and should be checked directly.
“The arithmetic is right. Almost everything that matters is missing: a source, a definition of who is retiring, and state pensions.”
— Thorsten Meyer, in the November 4 fact-check
Who the Cost Estimates Cover
The graphic’s author, data sources and calculation method have not been identified in the supplied reporting. Its annual figures do not specify household size, housing status, taxes, health insurance or included benefits. Without those definitions, readers cannot determine whether the estimates describe comparable lifestyles across the 18 countries or reproduce the calculations independently.
The pension examples also rely on conditions that may not match a reader’s circumstances. U.S. Social Security varies by work and benefit records; the UK full new State Pension requires qualifying National Insurance years. Meyer notes that pension income beginning at 67 does not fund a person who stops working at 55 during the years before benefits begin. The source does not provide individualized pension projections or a complete comparison of all countries in the graphic.
The fact-check’s introductory text refers to an AI-related concern among readers over 50, but the supplied material does not provide evidence that AI is causing large-scale layoffs of older workers. It says official data show older workers who lose jobs find new ones less often, but offers no specific data series or figures in the material provided. The scale and causes of that difference therefore cannot be evaluated from this source alone.
Verify Costs and Benefits Individually
The immediate next step for readers is to treat the graphic as an unverified estimate, not a retirement benchmark. A usable plan requires separate estimates for spending, public-pension eligibility and timing, housing, health coverage, taxes, and any residency requirements. Those figures should be checked against the relevant government agencies and consulates, since rates and rules can change.
For anyone assessing an early retirement, the time horizon also needs to match the planned retirement age and the age through which savings may be needed. The Morningstar rates cited here suggest that a 35- or 40-year plan calls for a lower starting withdrawal rate than the report’s 30-year case. They do not guarantee that a particular portfolio will last. The graphic’s original author or publisher has not supplied a method or supporting data in the material reviewed, so its country-by-country estimates remain unverified.
Key Questions
Is the graphic’s $2 million U.S. total mathematically correct?
Its arithmetic is consistent with the 25-times formula: $80,000 multiplied by 25 equals $2 million. That verifies the multiplication, not the underlying $80,000 annual spending estimate or whether the total fits a particular retiree.
Why does the fact-check give a lower U.S. savings figure?
It subtracts an estimated $40,260 in annual Social Security for an aged couple where both receive benefits from the graphic’s $80,000 annual cost, then multiplies the remaining $39,740 by 25. The resulting $993,500 is an illustration using average benefits, not an individualized target.
Does the 4% rule work for someone retiring at 55?
The cited rule is framed around about a 30-year retirement. Morningstar’s 2025 estimates cited in the report use lower starting withdrawal rates for 35- and 40-year periods, so the 25-times figure may be too low for some early retirees. These research estimates are not guarantees.
Can the graphic show which country is cheapest for retirement?
Not reliably on the information provided. It lists annual costs but gives no source, methodology or consistent definition of household size and included expenses. Visa requirements and pension eligibility are also separate from day-to-day living costs.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
