USA -- low budget repatriation specific locations that aren't horrible

[lannarebirth]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Click on the map to see the fastest growing cities in the USA and the world.

Many of the USA cities are ones we've discussed on this thread.

Not sure growing fast is always what people want, but here it is --

 

http://digg.com/2018/fastest-growing-cities-map

 

In the US, urbanization and counterurbanization is pretty cyclical. Urbanization has been on an upswing for a couple of decades now following a couple of decades of counterurbanization. I think we've probably reached peak urbanization for this cycle already.

[Jingthing]

These two links seem very useful.

I especially like the way they break down what goes into the rating.

As affordability is such a high priority for me, the places rated highly that don't rate well on affordability can easily be filtered out.

 

Best places

http://www.businessinsider.com/retirement-best-cities-us-ranked-2018-2

 

Worst places

http://www.businessinsider.com/worst-places-to-live-in-us-when-you-retire-2018-2

[Monomial]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

These two links seem very useful.

I especially like the way they break down what goes into the rating.

As affordability is such a high priority for me, the places rated highly that don't rate well on affordability can easily be filtered out.

 

Best places

http://www.businessinsider.com/retirement-best-cities-us-ranked-2018-2

 

Worst places

http://www.businessinsider.com/worst-places-to-live-in-us-when-you-retire-2018-2

 

I wouldn't trust those affordability calculations. They've rated Florida as highly affordable, which is probably because it has no income tax and low sales taxes. The reality is however, that for the poorer segment of retirees, most of their money is spent on rent and food which are usually exempt from sales tax anyway, and they never owe income taxes.

 

They can say whatever they want, but you can't convince me it is cheaper for someone without means to live in Florida where rents are high, vs. a place like Kansas or Michigan where rents are very low.

 

So if you've got several million and are looking for a place to live where you won't be overly taxed on your obscene wealth, maybe that WalletHub study is correct. If you're looking to survive on a meager Social Security check though, you can throw that study in the trash and use common sense.

 

[Jingthing]

I don't think they were really saying Florida overall is very cheap. They were talking about specific localities in Florida with relative affordability for those places that were included in the OVERALL more desirable list. It could be Kansas and Michigan locations don't really register because they can't compete on the OVERALL ratings. 

[Monomial]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

I don't think they were really saying Florida overall is very cheap. They were talking about specific localities in Florida with relative affordability for those places that were included in the OVERALL more desirable list. It could be Kansas and Michigan locations don't really register because they can't compete on the OVERALL ratings. 

 

I'm not talking about overall rankings. I am talking specifically about the affordability listing. From the businessinsider article they link to:

 

Quote

Florida is also tops in the overall affordability category.

 

Florida...as in the entire state is considered tops in affordability.  That should be raising red flags. As an example, they have Orlando listed as the 8th most affordable place to live in the USA, with Lincoln, Nebraska s 107th. Now, I just so happen to know people living in both of those cities. Not in the age of the universe would anyone say Orlando is a cheaper place to live than Lincoln. Lower taxes? Probably. Cheaper? Not a chance.

 

Just my advice, but do not pay attention to those affordability ratings. They are not measuring what normal people measure when they think about affordability. They appear to measuring what millionaires think about.

 

 

 

 

[mogandave]

 
I wouldn't trust those affordability calculations. They've rated Florida as highly affordable, which is probably because it has no income tax and low sales taxes. The reality is however, that for the poorer segment of retirees, most of their money is spent on rent and food which are usually exempt from sales tax anyway, and they never owe income taxes.
 
They can say whatever they want, but you can't convince me it is cheaper for someone without means to live in Florida where rents are high, vs. a place like Kansas or Michigan where rents are very low.
 
So if you've got several million and are looking for a place to live where you won't be overly taxed on your obscene wealth, maybe that WalletHub study is correct. If you're looking to survive on a meager Social Security check though, you can throw that study in the trash and use common sense.
 

Managing to save a couple million dollars over 40 years of working makes one obscenely rich?

But you’re right, the articles are typically not written for people living hand-to-mouth.

[Langsuan Man]

On 3/27/2018 at 3:35 PM, Jingthing said:

This article has some very useful information for older expats that may be repatriating and also will lack a good SUPPORT SYSTEM if they do so. I think that is probably fairly common for expats that have lived abroad for many years. But as usual, it still takes a healthy amount of MOOLAH. 

This problem applies to anyone in the US that is single, older and has no relatives near them, not just expats.  The whole medical system in the US is still set up under the notion that everyone has a "care giver" immediately available . This is no longer true and anchors the US health care to a model that no longer exists.   
 

I recently had a colonoscopy and they insisted that I had to have someone drive me to and return me to home after the procedure.  Since I have no  relatives or a neighbor who I could call on I contracted with a medical transportation company that takes patients to and from doctor appointments.  And even that was not enough for them, they complained that I should have someone that could sit there for 3 hours waiting for me, not just driving me to and from.  Similar to the time I was in the Emergency Room and the attending ER doctor told the orthopedist that they couldn't admit me because a broken leg did not qualify for hospitalization.  His succinct reply to her was:  He has no one at home.  Are you going to take him to your house for the night ?  Needless to say I was admitted 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

Managing to save a couple million dollars over 40 years of working makes one obscenely rich?

But you’re right, the articles are typically not written for people living hand-to-mouth.

 

I agree with you that having two million dollars in liquid assets in the U.S. is not "obscenely" rich these days. However, the vast majority of older Americans don't have nearly that much. In fact, a significant portion of older Americans live on social security only and the national average check is only 1400 dollars per month. Yes, that translates into poverty and very dire poverty if the housing isn't owned and paid off. 

Edited April 29, 2018 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

5 hours ago, Monomial said:

 

I'm not talking about overall rankings. I am talking specifically about the affordability listing. From the businessinsider article they link to:

 

 

Florida...as in the entire state is considered tops in affordability.  That should be raising red flags. As an example, they have Orlando listed as the 8th most affordable place to live in the USA, with Lincoln, Nebraska s 107th. Now, I just so happen to know people living in both of those cities. Not in the age of the universe would anyone say Orlando is a cheaper place to live than Lincoln. Lower taxes? Probably. Cheaper? Not a chance.

 

Just my advice, but do not pay attention to those affordability ratings. They are not measuring what normal people measure when they think about affordability. They appear to measuring what millionaires think about.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I see what you're saying now on this link. Florida as the most affordable does seem a bit odd but maybe not as odd as you're suggesting. It's a large state with lots of pretty crappy areas. Much of the north part of it is more like South Georgia (deep, deep southern) than stereotypical Florida. But overall I think you're right. Be wary of taking these ranking lists overly seriously. But I still think they're interesting. 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/best-places-to-retire-in-us-ranked-2018-2#15-california-36

[mogandave]

I agree with you that having two million dollars in liquid assets in the U.S. is not "obscenely" rich these days. However, the vast majority of older Americans don't have nearly that much. In fact, a significant portion of older Americans live on social security only and the national average check is only 1400 dollars per month. Yes, that translates into poverty and very dire poverty if the housing isn't owned and paid off. 

$1,400 a month is very dire poverty?

So how much is dire poverty, $2.000?

What about regular poverty, $3,000?

In addition to the SS payment there are also a number of other programs they would qualify for.

[sukhumvitneon]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Yes, I see what you're saying now on this link. Florida as the most affordable does seem a bit odd but maybe not as odd as you're suggesting. It's a large state with lots of pretty crappy areas. Much of the north part of it is more like South Georgia (deep, deep southern) than stereotypical Florida. But overall I think you're right. Be wary of taking these ranking lists overly seriously. But I still think they're interesting. 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/best-places-to-retire-in-us-ranked-2018-2#15-california-36

Florida is a really odd state.  On the coasts you have multi million dollar beach front properties/resorts/mansions, but when you drive 20-30 minutes inland you'll find trailer parks, section 8 buildings, and housing worth <200k.  There are to this day a ton of unsold/abandoned houses and condos that never have nor will recover their value from the 2008 crash.   Overall CoL is low especially when you consider the climate. The big problems there are the fact that the job market and salaries are awful.  Don't forget the Florida homestead exemption in case things go to hell financially.

[Jingthing]

Florida is a really odd state.  On the coasts you have multi million dollar beach front properties/resorts/mansions, but when you drive 20-30 minutes inland you'll find trailer parks, section 8 buildings, and housing worth

Yeah I noticed that years ago when I was seriously shopping for a condo in the Fort Lauderdale area.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Yes, I see what you're saying now on this link. Florida as the most affordable does seem a bit odd but maybe not as odd as you're suggesting.

 

How and whey used this particular method of ranking affordability, I'm not sure. But I'm thinking, it probably doesn't correspond much to how I would experience and judge affordability:

 

 

https://wallethub.com/edu/best-and-worst-states-to-retire/18592/#methodology

[Monomial]

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Managing to save a couple million dollars over 40 years of working makes one obscenely rich?

But you’re right, the articles are typically not written for people living hand-to-mouth.

 

 

Just as a point of reference, if you are worth more than $1 million USD including your primary residence, you are in the top 10% of Americans. If you have more than $2 million in liquid assets (i.e. not including your primary residence) you are well into the top 5%. Granted the curve gets steep from there, but it all depends on your perspective.

 

While these may not seem like extreme amounts of wealth, to the vast majority of the poor under you, you do appear to be obscenely wealthy.

 

Most people today live hand to mouth, and if you are not living hand to mouth you are in an elite class. No matter if you got there by working hard or cheating. When you are thinking about retirement destinations, looking at the economic stress lines of the population is very important.  Brexit and Trump didn't happen by accident. They were completely predictable in the same way the French revolution was predictable.  More is coming. This is not over by a long shot.

 

There is a coming backlash against those having anything by the vast majority who have nothing. If you really want to have a stress free retirement, it is relevant to start thinking in these terms. "Obscene" may be a stretch, but do you really want to start arguing definitions with those who have less? They outnumber you 10:1.

 

[mogandave]

Cheap places to live are cheap places to live, and they are relatively easy to find.

Really bitchin’ places to live that are cheap, not so easy to find.

I’m guessing Business Insider’s target audience is not 65 year old food-stamp recipients...

Also, any entity surviving on selling ad space is suspect.

I lived in FL for 10 years in the ‘70 & ‘80s and it seemed pretty cheap then. Not in Coral Gables perhaps, but in plenty of places.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

MONEY did another take on the nation's affordable states last month, using the following methodology, which looks at rents and the costs of goods, but apparently does not figure in state tax policies. Looks like Mississippi is at the bottom of the list, or, the most affordable state just in terms of rents and costs:

 

http://time.com/money/5177566/average-income-every-state-real-value/

 

Quote

 

we adjusted those figures based on each state’s 2015 “regional price parity”—a calculation by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis that shows how much a certain amount of cash will buy you in a given place.

The higher the price parity number for a given state, the more residents will pay for items such as housing, food, and transportation. The BEA calculates this by looking at the price of goods and services in the Consumer Price Index, as well as rents reported to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. A price parity figure of 118.8, like Hawaii’s, means that goods and services there cost almost 19% more than the national average. Prices in Mississippi, meanwhile, with a price parity of 86.2, are about 14% less than the national average.

 

 

For brevity's sake, I'll just list the states below where their affordability index was 90 or below, meaning average costs 10% or more below the national average:

 

Alabama -- 86.8

Arkansas -- 87.4

Kentucky -- 88.6

Mississippi -- 86.2

Missouri -- 89.3

Ohio -- 89.2

Oklahoma -- 89.9

South Dakota -- 88.2

Tennessee -- 89.9

West Virginia -- 88.9

 

Note - Texas came in at 96.8, and Florida at 99.5, just slightly below the U.S. national average.

 

 

Edited April 29, 2018 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[mogandave]

Look for really low income places, that’s generally where costs are low.

Coincidence?

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

This was another interesting info source I found, the Economic Policy Institute's Family Budget calculator. One thing that's good about it is it allows you to define your own family size for cost purposes --  one person, two people, children or not, and then shows you monthly and annual costs of living for different U.S. metro areas and counties, based on 2017 data that includes a pretty good cross-section of actual costs.

 

https://www.epi.org/resources/budget/

 

Here's what their 2017 results look like for Spokane WA, using my example, for two people without children:

 

 

I was looking for a ranking of cities based on their data, but the most recent ranking I could find just searching quickly was a 2015 era recap of their data. The below ranking is based on costs just for a single person only: (JUST TO NOTE, THE 2015 DATA BELOW IS NOW GOING TO BE OUT OF DATE. USE THE CALCULATOR ABOVE FOR CURRENT ESTIMATED COSTS)

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/cost-of-living-single-people-2015-8

 

 

 

Edited April 29, 2018 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Jingthing]

Yes, of course, as I stated before, for seniors living only on an average S.S. check, and remember average means many people getting much less than the average (1400 per month), you're usually talking about a very grim existence pretty much everywhere in the U.S. Obviously personal circumstances matter such as whether the housing is owned and whether there are relatives to provide support, etc. 

 

Sorry I don't have the link, but I recall I recently read that the average annual spend for a retired American is 42K. Obviously you can survive many places spending less than that, but that gives some idea of what a "spend down" might look like if you have only a S.S. check and savings to eat up. 

 

Edited April 29, 2018 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Since this thread is well seasoned by now and many of posts especially the earlier ones are dated and irrelevant by now, I want to give an update on my personal thinking about repatriation.

 

Keep in mind I want this thread to be kept going for general interest of all Americans considering lower budget repatriation. It's not meant to be only about my decision.

 

Anyway, where I'm at now is a fairly solid decision to try to stay in Thailand until at least age 65 so if I repatriate after that I won't have to be concerned about health care access via ACA as that's old enough for Medicare. 

 

I have also determined based on my financial situation if is possible to either stay in Thailand for the long haul OR to a third lower cost country (such as in South America) my quality of life will probably be better, though understanding there are risks and costs to living abroad as well. 

 

Another option is temporary repatriation before moving to a third country. 

 

Repatriation is still an option before or after age 65 though, which might be prompted by complicated personal circumstances not worth going into here. In other words, I would prefer to stay but things may happen that make leaving preferable or even necessary.

So besides it's interest to others, I still want to learn more about potential lower budget destinations in the U.S. Of course, by now I have a number of specific places in mind, but I doubt I would settle on a final choice unless/until I actually make such a move. 

 

I can also imagine this topic may be of interest to lower wealth Americans that have not expatriated yet to Thailand or a third country, to hear about options in the U.S. Of course, it's very common for older Americans, rich and poor, to relocate within the U.S. after retirement. 

 

Cheers. 

Edited April 29, 2018 by Jingthing

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Anyway, where I'm at now is a fairly solid decision to try to stay in Thailand until at least age 65 so if I repatriate after that I won't have to be concerned about health care access via ACA as that's old enough for Medicare. 

 

Thanks for updating on your thinking, Jing. I was kind of wondering lately, after 104 pages in this thread, if you'd come to any conclusions.

 

My current thinking is basically the same, to wait until Medicare age eligibility. But that's still some years off in my case, and all kinds of things better or worse could happen in the meantime that might change my calculations.

 

In my case, I'm currently figuring, I'll spend the coming years staying here mulling over what my future U.S. destination might be. And perhaps even, spending some time on periodic trips back to the U.S. scoping out some likely future locations in person -- kind of like I did before finally moving to Thailand.

 

Originally, at the time I moved here, I kind of figured I'd stay here the rest of my life. But now some years older and perhaps wiser, I'm no longer working from that assumption and instead looking back to the U.S.  However, still got quite few years, hopefully, before reaching that trigger point.

 

[GinBoy2]

23 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Thanks for updating on your thinking, Jing. I was kind of wondering lately, after 104 pages in this thread, if you'd come to any conclusions.

 

My current thinking is basically the same, to wait until Medicare age eligibility. But that's still some years off in my case, and all kinds of things better or worse could happen in the meantime that might change my calculations.

 

In my case, I'm currently figuring, I'll spend the coming years staying here mulling over what my future U.S. destination might be. And perhaps even, spending some time on periodic trips back to the U.S. scoping out some likely future locations in person -- kind of like I did before finally moving to Thailand.

 

Originally, at the time I moved here, I kind of figured I'd stay here the rest of my life. But now some years older and perhaps wiser, I'm no longer working from that assumption and instead looking back to the U.S.  However, still got quite few years, hopefully, before reaching that trigger point.

 

I think you and JT have summed up pretty nicely some of the issues regarding life in Thailand and repatriation.

 

Nobody moves to Thailand, thinking of return, but time in Thailand can eventually change your mind.

 

When I was contemplating my return to the US, aside from the usual Thai gripes, which I’m not going to mention or I’ll get trolled by the usual Thai apologists, the main thing was age

 

Primarily I came to the conclusion that Thailand is no place for old men, or women for that matter. 

 

Health insurance gets increasingly unaffordable, to the point it basically get priced out of range fro all but the wealthiest. Whereas even for us in the US, which out somewhat convoluted system old age is where you actually can relax about health care.

 

When you arrive as a younger man, you’re still immortal, and the perils of old age and the inevitable health issues that come inexorably along with it.

 

As a quick commentary on the ACA. I’m 59, so still a few years off Medicare. I live in a State without expanded Medicare, but I got insurance easily through ACA. Now I have some income through my rental houses, and use my savings, but because ‘earned’ income through my rentals isn't that much, and your savings don’t count as income, the tax credits pay for the premium. Now I have a $6000 deductible, which I could easily pay if something awful happened, but if you don’t have enough money, thats why God invented credit cards. Good thing is it covers Doc office visits for a flat $35 co-pay not subject to the deductable, which for me at the moment is all I need, if only to write me a script for my asthma meds and the like. Oh and it also covers Mrs G btw. So all in all not a back deal.

 

So I haven’t regretted my choice to repatriate, we’re actually back in Thailand for a few months (with travel insurance of course), returning to the US next month, which is a balance I can live with without losing my sanity

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

I agree with what you're saying above. But beyond that, I must say, I find it more than a bit unsettling when you look at what's going on with the Republicans in Congress now, and the current state of things like ACA, Medicare and Social Security.

 

I know what the rules and regs are now for all of the three. But the Republicans are doing their best to scuttle ACA, and have passed the huge tax corporate tax cuts that are likely to swell the federal deficit in coming years. And, perhaps conveniently from their perspective, that's likely to put more pressure on future curtailments to things like Medicare and Social Security.

 

So bottom line: My feeling is I have no clear idea what to expect in terms of those three major programs 5 or 6 years from now when you and I will both be hitting our mid 60s. It's more than a bit disconcerting. And it's the details of those kinds of things that weigh heavily on most folks repatriation decisions.

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[mogandave]

I agree with what you're saying above. But beyond that, I must say, I find it more than a bit unsettling when you look at what's going on with the Republicans in Congress now, and the current state of things like ACA, Medicare and Social Security.
 
I know what the rules and regs are now for all of the three. But the Republicans are doing their best to scuttle ACA, and have passed the huge tax corporate tax cuts that are likely to swell the federal deficit in coming years. And, perhaps conveniently from their perspective, that's likely to put more pressure on future curtailments to things like Medicare and Social Security.
 
So bottom line: My feeling is I have no clear idea what to expect in terms of those three major programs 5 or 6 years from now when you and I will both be hitting our mid 60s. It's more than a bit disconcerting. And it's the details of those kinds of things that weigh heavily on most folks repatriation decisions.
 

Save your money...

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

Save your money...

 

As long as we're doing cliches, how about Go West Old Man! 

[lannarebirth]

15 hours ago, Jingthing said:

As long as we're doing cliches, how about Go West Old Man! 

That's the long way around.

[Jingthing]

As I've said before, I do see the appeal of mid-sized cities. When I was younger I didn't, but now I do.

 

This article is how some mid-sized cities (other than already super trendy places like Austin) are being seen as cool and more popular with younger Americans.

 

Cities mentioned include Louisville, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Madison, and St. Louis. Yes some of those are arguably bigger than mid-sized when you include the metro areas, and Madison which is often mentioned as a great place -- so far north!

https://www.curbed.com/2018/5/1/17306978/career-millennial-home-buying-second-city

The new magnetism of mid-size cities

 

For many millennials, second cities are becoming their first choice

 

 

Edited May 4, 2018 by Jingthing

[sukhumvitneon]

12 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Cities mentioned include Louisville, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Madison, and St. Louis. Yes some of those are arguably bigger than mid-sized when you include the metro areas, and Madison which is often mentioned as a great place -- so far north!

Indianapolis is really nice.  Downtown has come a long way and has really been spiffed up with a lot of new restaurants and shops.  There's also a lot of up and coming areas in Hamilton county north of the city like Fishers and Carmel where you can get a brand new or nearly new 3-4 bedroom house with a good amount of land for $300-400k with some of the best schools in the state.  It's growing really fast and the job market is hot; 15 years ago that area was nothing but cornfields and pastures.

 

Avoid Pittsburgh like the plague.  I could go on all day about why you shouldn't move there.  To put it mildly, it's essentially an extension of West Virginia with some pro sports teams.

[SpokaneAl]

I found this interesting . . . https://moneywise.com/a/ch-a/americas-worst-states-to-retire-in?utm_source=fbk_rbn&utm_medium=mobi&utm_campaign=rbn_worstretire2&utm_content=rbn_worstretire2_pubaa_mobi_v05


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[GinBoy2]

10 hours ago, SpokaneAl said:

I found this interesting . . . https://moneywise.com/a/ch-a/americas-worst-states-to-retire-in?utm_source=fbk_rbn&utm_medium=mobi&utm_campaign=rbn_worstretire2&utm_content=rbn_worstretire2_pubaa_mobi_v05


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

The list of worst States, contained a lot of what I would consider the ‘usual suspects’.

 

I found the following list of Dying Dept Stores equally fascinating, not least because my local mall just lost two of it’s anchor stores within a few months of each other; Sears & Herberger's (part of the Bon Ton empire).

 

I was rather sad at the demise of Sears, primarily because it was one of the first, if not the first credit card I could ever get, so it held a certain special place in my heart.

 

Then I got to thinking, I probably haven’t stepped foot inside a Sears for over a decade or more, and struggled to think of any reason why I would.

 

Sad end of the mall era, but thats progress I guess...