Wealth is measured in many ways. Some see it purely as the money you have, while others may look at net worth or your overall quality of life. The same goes when measuring the wealth of countries. Some countries, like Indonesia or China, may dominate the world in gross domestic product but have unlivable wages and poor living conditions for most.
To help wade through all the numbers and find the wealthiest countries in the world, we combined three metrics of wealth to see what countries deliver the best overall balance of gross domestic product (GDP), average income and Social Progress Index (SPI). Here’s our methodology.
Keep reading to see what countries landed on our 50 wealthiest countries list.
50. Costa Rica
GDP Rank: 79
Average Income Rank: 98
Social Progress Index Rank: 33
Average Rank: 70
Bottom Line: Costa Rica
Starting off our list of the 50 wealthiest nations is the tiny Central American nation of Costa Rica. Sure, its $60.1 billion GDP ranks just No. 79 and its $9,645 average income is No. 98, but it squeezes its way onto the bottom of our top-50 list with the help of a No. 33 ranking in SPI.
Costa Rica’s SPI gets boosts from high rankings in water and sanitation, access to nutrition and basic medical care and personal rights. There are a few flaws in its SPI that pull it down to No. 33, and those include a 36.36 score in access to advanced education, 65.66 score in personal safety and a 65.89 score in inclusiveness.
49. Croatia
GDP Rank: 78
Average Income Rank: 94
Social Progress Index Rank: 37
Average Rank: 69.3
Bottom Line: Croatia
Croatia is not a country many will look at when thinking about wealth, and we can’t fault them with its $60.8 billion GDP ranking No. 78 in the world and its $10,314 average salary ranking No. 94. Where Croatia makes up ground is its No. 37 SPI ranking, which helps it land at No. 49 on our list of wealthiest nations.
This SPI ranking gets boosts from high scores in clean water and sanitation, access to basic medical care and access to basic knowledge. Like other European nations, Croatia struggles in inclusiveness (47.84 points) and access to advanced education (49.31), which pull its overall score down a fair amount.
48. Latvia
GDP Rank: 102
Average Income Rank: 51
Social Progress Index Rank: 39
Average Rank: 63.7
Bottom Line: Latvia
This European nation’s $34.8 billion GDP in unimpressive, but its No. 39 ranking in SPI pulls it back into the fold.
High ratings in access to nutrition and basic medical care, clean water and sanitation, and personal rights boost its SPI ratings.
But a 44.34 score in access to advanced education and 51.14 score in inclusiveness drag it down.
47. Algeria
GDP Rank: 56
Average Income Rank: 58
Social Progress Index Rank: 75
Average Rank: 62.7
Bottom Line: Algeria
The only African country on our list is No. 47 ranked Algeria. Algeria has no standout numbers, but its No. 56 ranked 180.7 billion GDP and No. 58 ranked $22,064 average income strike a balance that put it in the lower part of our top 50 wealthiest nations list.
Algeria struggles a bit in SPI at No. 75. While it gets OK scores in access to nutrition and basic medical care and access to basic knowledge, its 20.24 score in access to advanced education and 42.58 score in inclusiveness drag it way down.
46. Turkey
GDP Rank: 19
Average Income Rank: 93
Social Progress Index Rank: 76
Average Rank: 62.7
Bottom Line: Turkey
Turkey boasts a large GDP of $766.5 billion that puts it No. 19 in the world. This type of production should make it far higher in terms of wealth, but it has severe shortcomings in average income and SPI ranking. With the average Turkish worker pulling in just $10,380, Turkey ranks No. 93 in average income.
Turkey’s SPI doesn’t do it any favors at No. 76. While Turkey gets high marks in access to clean water and sanitation, and access to nutrition and basic medical care, it has huge issues in inclusiveness (24.33 points), access to advanced education (42.28 points), personal rights (43.07 points), personal safety (54.93 points), and personal freedom and choice (63.03 points).
45. Slovakia
GDP Rank: 63
Average Income Rank: 90
Social Progress Index Rank: 35
Average Rank: 62.3
Bottom Line: Slovakia
Landlocked Central Europe country Slovakia checks in at No. 45 on our list, despite a low GDP and average income.
Pulling Slovakia up our list is its No. 35 ranking in SPI, which it owes to its wide access to clean water and sanitation, access to nutrition and basic healthcare, and access to shelter. SPI takes a hit in access to advanced education at 39.97 points, but that is the norm in Europe.
Where Slovakia slides is its No. 63 ranked $106.5 billion GDP and No. 90 rank average income of just $10,653.
44. Romania
GDP Rank: 49
Average Income Rank: 89
Social Progress Index Rank: 44
Average Rank: 60.3
Bottom Line: Romania
Romania may not be top of mind when thinking of the wealthiest nations in the world, but it checks in at No. 44 on our list thanks to its No. 49 ranked $239.6 billion GDP and No. 44 ranked SPI. The latter score is mostly due to the county’s superior access to nutrition and basic medical care.
Romania’s SPI suffers from a 38.75 score in access to advanced education and a 45.31 score in inclusiveness.
What pulls Romania deep down the list of wealthiest nations is its No. 89 ranked average income of $11,290.
43. Malaysia
GDP Rank: 38
Average Income Rank: 92
Social Progress Index Rank: 50
Average Rank: 59.7
Bottom Line: Malaysia
Southeast Asia is underrepresented on this list, but Malaysia makes it just under the cut at No. 43 with a relatively high $354.3 billion GDP that places it No. 38 in the world.
Dragging it down the list is what troubles much of this region, average income. On average, workers earn just $10,460 per year, putting Malaysia No. 92 in the world.
Malaysia also falters a bit in the SPI at No. 50. Boosting Malaysia’s SPI score is high ratings in access to water and sanitation, shelter, nutrition and basic medical care.
Malaysia struggles in inclusiveness, access to advanced education and personal rights with scores of 40.98, 45.4 and 58.9, respectively.
42. Estonia
GDP Rank: 104
Average Income Rank: 47
Social Progress Index Rank: 27
Average Rank: 59
Bottom Line: Estonia
With a $30.2 billion GDP that ranks just No. 104 in the world, Estonia is far from what many may consider one of the wealthiest nations. Its No. 47 ranked $26,898 average income doesn’t help much either. What helps put this European nation at No. 42 on our list is its No. 27 ranking in SPI.
Estonia crushes the SPI with high scores in access to clean water and sanitation, access to nutrition and basic health care, and personal rights.
Like other European nations, its 52.81 points in access to advanced education could use improvement, as could its 55.07 points in inclusiveness.
41. China
GDP Rank: 2
Average Income Rank: 102
Social Progress Index Rank: 66
Average Rank: 56.7
Bottom Line: China
China is yet another one-hit-wonder on our list, as it crushes everyone but the U.S. with its No. 2 ranked 13.6 trillion GDP but falls sharply in income and SPI.
The latter rings in at No. 66 on our list, and with all the press China receives, it is easy to guess where it falters: a 27.04 score in personal rights, a 31.02 score in inclusiveness and 39.45 score in access to advanced education. China does get high marks in access to basic medical care.
China’s most significant flaw is in its average income, which ranks 102nd in the world at just $9,470 per year.
40. Russia
GDP Rank: 11
Average Income Rank: 95
Social Progress Index Rank: 66
Average Rank: 55.7
Bottom Line: Russia
Russia has a hefty $1.7 trillion GDP that puts it No. 11 in the world, but it falls sharply to No. 40 on our list with its No. 95 ranked $10,230 average income. SPI doesn’t do it any favors either at No. 66.
Healthy scores in access to basic medical care, access to basic knowledge, and clean water and sanitation boost Russia’s SPI numbers.
But pulling the opposite direction are scores of 33.69, 45.74 and 52.87 in inclusiveness, personal safety and personal rights, respectively.
39. Lithuania
GDP Rank: 86
Average Income Rank: 50
Social Progress Index Rank: 31
Average Rank: 55.3
Bottom Line: Lithuania
This European nation’s $53.3 billion GDP ranks only No. 86 in the world, and its $26,429 average income is low at No. 50 in the world, but its No. 31 ranking in SPI gives it a boost.
In the SPI, Lithuania gets high marks in access to basic medical care, access to water and sanitation and personal rights.
Like many European nations, it ranks low in access to advanced education at 49.79 points, but it also falls in health and wellness and inclusiveness at 67.84 and 63.54 points, respectively.
38. Saudi Arabia
GDP Rank: 18
Average Income Rank: 61
Social Progress Index Rank: 86
Average Rank: 55
Bottom Line: Saudi Arabia
As the world’s largest producer of petroleum, no wealthiest countries list would be complete without Saudi Arabia. According to OPEC, 50 percent of Saudi Arabia’s No. 18-ranked $782.4 billion GDP comes from petroleum.
With that high of a GDP ranking, Saudi Arabia should be higher than No. 38, but its No. 61 ranked $21,540 average income and No. 86 SPI ranking almost pull it off the list altogether.
Saudi Arabia’s SPI gets boosts from easy access to water and sanitation and basic medical care, but it takes enormous hits with three very low scores: 13.87 points in inclusiveness, 17.26 points in personal rights and 36.82 points in access to advanced education.
37. Brazil
GDP Rank: 9
Average Income Rank: 103
Social Progress Index Rank: 49
Average Rank: 39.3
Bottom Line: Brazil
Brazil shows how a country can overcome one massive shortcoming with a big rating in another category, as its $9,140 average income ranks No. 103 in the world, but its No. 9-ranked 1.9 trillion GDP pulls it back onto our list.
Balancing everything out is its No. 49 ranking in the SPI. This ranking in SPI owes a lot to the country’s OK marks in access to basic medical care and clean water and sanitation.
But it takes big hits in access to advanced education and personal safety, which received scores of 36.80 and 47.26, respectively.
36. Cyprus
GDP Rank: 112
Average Income Rank: 20
Social Progress Index Rank: 28
Average Rank: 51.3
Bottom Line: Cyprus
Cyprus, an island nation in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, checks in at No. 36 on our list, but it is certainly no thanks to its $24.5 billion GDP that ranks No. 112 in the world.
Where Cyprus excels is its $45,705 average income that ranks No. 20 and its No. 28 ranking in the SPI. The latter is due to the country’s access to clean water and sanitation (though it has struggled with water shortages in the past), access to basic medical care and personal rights.
This score would be better had it not been for its 53.27 points in access to advanced education.
35. Chile
GDP Rank: 43
Average Income Rank: 78
Social Progress Index Rank: 34
Average Rank: 41.3
Bottom Line: Chile
At No. 35 in our list of wealthiest countries is another South American country, Chile. Known for its massive coastline but not so much its average income, which checks in at No. 78 at $14,670.
Its $298.2 billion GDP is also relatively low at No 43, but its No. 34 ranking in SPI give it the shot it needs to make its way into the bottom half of our list.
Chile’s SPI gets big boosts from a near-perfect rating in access to water and sanitation, basic medical care and personal rights, but its 43.69 points in access to advanced education pull it down.
34. Argentina
GDP Rank: 24
Average Income Rank: 84
Social Progress Index Rank: 42
Average Rank: 50
Bottom Line: Argentina
No. 34 on our wealthiest countries list is the large South American country of Argentina. It fails to impress with its $12,370 average income ringing in at No. 84 in the world, but its $518.5 billion GDP ranks No. 24 and gives it a boost.
Leveling everything out is its No. 42 ranking in the SPI. Argentina’s access to water and sanitation, and good basic medical care, give its SPI score a boost.
But its 40.82 points in access to advanced education and 58.37 points in personal safety drag its overall score way down.
33. Qatar
GDP Rank: 55
Average Income Rank: 36
Social Progress Index Rank: 58
Average Rank: 49.3
Bottom Line: Qatar
Like the UAE, Qatar is an oil-rich country that should have one of the highest average incomes in the world. Sadly, its income disparity exceeds that of UAE with the highest earners making 13 times the poorest, according to The Economist, This drags its average income to $36,958, which ranks No 36.
Dragging Qatar down to No. 33 on our wealthiest nations list is its GDP and SPI ratings. With a GDP of just $192 billion and SPI suffering from severe struggles with inclusiveness, personal rights and access to advanced education, these key categories rank No. 55 and No. 58, respectively.
32. Mexcio
GDP Rank: 15
Average Income Rank: 73
Social Progress Index Rank: 59
Average Rank: 49
Bottom Line: Mexico
Mexico has a massive GDP of $1.2 trillion, putting it No. 15 in the world. Despite this considerable number, it comes in at just No. 32 on our list of wealthiest nations.
Mexico’s most significant fall from grace comes from its No. 73 ranked average income of only $16,298, but its No. 59 ranked SPI rating does it no favors too.
The SPI rating shows OK scores in water and sanitation and basic medical care, but it falls short in key areas with a 45.80 in access to advanced education, 48.27 in personal safety, and 62.06 in personal freedom and choice.
31. Hungary
GDP Rank: 58
Average Income Rank: 53
Social Progress Index Rank: 36
Average Rank: 48.7
Bottom Line: Hungary
The No. 31 wealthiest nation on our list is Hungary, which boasts a No. 36 ranked SPI thanks to high ratings in water and sanitation, basic medical care and access to basic knowledge.
The SPI numbers weren’t all good, though, as it struggles with a 50.29 score in access to advanced education and 58.56 score in inclusiveness.
Where Hungary loses points is its No. 58-ranked $155.7 billion GDP and No. 53 ranked average income of just $24,455.
30. Slovenia
GDP Rank: 85
Average Income Rank: 35
Social Progress Index Rank: 22
Average Rank: 47
Bottom Line: Slovenia
Slovenia is No. 30 on our list, but its No. 85 ranked $54.2 billion GDP may lead many to leave it off any wealthiest country list. Helping pull it back into the fray is its No. 35 ranked average salary of $37,322 and No. 22 ranking on the SPI.
The latter score is thanks to its access to clean water, access to basic knowledge and personal rights. It rings in low with a 52.58 in access to advanced education, but this is similar to its European neighbors.
29. Greece
GDP Rank: 53
Average Income Rank: 48
Social Progress Index Rank: 29
Average Rank: 43
Bottom Line: Greece
Like Portugal, our No. 29 wealthiest nation, Greece, will not blow anyone away with its $218 billion GDP or $26,671 average income, which rank No. 53 and No. 48, respectively.
Greece comes back with its No. 29 ranked SPI that it owes to access to clean water, basic medical care and basic knowledge.
Like other European nations, Greece struggles with a 55.79 score in access to advanced education, which drags its overall rating down a bit.
28. Portugal
GDP Rank: 50
Average Income Rank: 52
Social Progress Index Rank: 24
Average Rank: 41.7
Bottom Line: Portugal
Portugal’s No. 50 ranked $238 billion GDP and No. 52 ranked $25,487 average income won’t win it any awards, but combined with its No. 24 ranking in SPI, it is enough to place it No. 28 overall.
This high ranking is thanks to its clean water and sanitation, access to basic medical care and personal rights.
Portugal comes up short with a 46.78 rating in access to advanced education, but all other ratings are a 72.89 or higher.
27. Iceland
GDP Rank: 110
Average Income Rank: 6
Social Progress Index Rank: 2
Average Rank: 39
Bottom Line: Iceland
Iceland is No. 27 on our list of wealthiest nations, but its 110th ranked $25.9 billion GDP is not a good indicator of its wealth.
Where Iceland excels is its No. 2 ranked SPI thanks to near-perfect rankings in water and sanitation and basic medical care. It also is a world leader in access to basic knowledge and personal rights, but it comes up short with a 61.91 rating in access to advanced education.
Iceland is also a leader in average salary with its $66,504 yearly wage ranking No. 6 in the world. This, combined with the high SPI ranking, is enough to overcome its lack of GDP and earn a spot at the table of wealthiest nations.
26. Czech Republic
GDP Rank: 48
Average Income Rank: 34
Social Progress Index Rank: 26
Average Rank: 35.7
Bottom Line: Czech Republic
The Czech Republic is known for cranking out hockey players but not so much in finished products, leading to its No. 48 ranked $244.1 billion GDP. It doesn’t do much better with its No. 34-ranked $26,962 average wage.
Despite its lower GDP and average wages, the Czech Republic still ranks No. 26 on our list thanks to its No. 26 ranked SPI. The Czech Republic’s SPI gets a boost due to high ratings in water and sanitation, basic medical care and personal rights.
Like most other European nations, the Czech Republic struggles with just 56.14 of 100 points in access to advanced education.
25. United Arab Emirates
GDP Rank: 30
Average Income Rank: 26
Social Progress Index Rank: 45
Average Rank: 33.7
Bottom Line: United Arab Emirates
The UAE checks in at No. 25 on our list with the No. 30-ranked GDP at $414.2 billion and No. 26-ranked average income of $41,010.
That income may seem quite low for such an oil-rich nation, but a 19.5 percent poverty rate and one of the worst wealth gaps in the world create this low average, according to the Borgen Report.
UAE’s restrictive laws lead to a 54.72 score in personal rights, and limited advanced education results in a 39.39 in access to advanced education, pushing it to No. 45 in SPI ranking.
UAE received high ratings in clean water and sanitation, access to shelter and basic medical care, but even those can’t overcome the aforementioned low ratings.
24. Israel
GDP Rank: 34
Average Income Rank: 34
Social Progress Index Rank: 30
Average Rank: 32.7
Bottom Line: Israel
Israel ranks in the 30s in all three of our key measurements, making it even keel across the board and earning it the No. 24 overall spot on our list.
Its GDP and average income rank No. 34 in the world at $369.4 billion and $37,655, respectively. Its place on the Social Progress Index pushes it up slightly.
Areas where Israel shines in the SPI include its perfect 100 score in water and sanitation, and high marks in basic medical care and basic knowledge.
It falls short in inclusiveness at 43.11 and access to advanced education at 59.46 points.
23. Poland
GDP Rank: 21
Average Income Rank: 43
Social Progress Index Rank: 32
Average Rank: 32
Bottom Line: Poland
Poland is near the midway point of our wealthiest nations list at No. 23. There are no real glaring good or bad numbers for Poland, as it is very average in most areas.
Its $585.8 billion GDP ranks No. 21 in the world, and its SPI checks in at No. 32. Poland’s SPI gets a boost from high rankings in water and sanitation, medical care and access to basic knowledge, but its 48.74 score in access to advanced education is meager.
Income ranks No. 43 at $29,109 per year.
22. New Zealand
GDP Rank: 54
Average Income Rank: 25
Social Progress Index Rank: 10
Average Rank: 29.7
Bottom Line: New Zealand
Though not as significant as Luxembourg, New Zealand also overcomes a tiny GDP to land on our list at No. 22.
With a $205 billion GDP, this island nation is No. 53 in the world, but its No. 10 ranking in SPI — which it owes to a perfect 100 score in water and sanitation, and high rankings in basic medical care and personal rights — pulls it way up.
Balancing it all out is its No. 25-ranked average salary of $42,325.
21. Luxembourg
GDP Rank: 74
Average Income Rank: 7
Social Progress Index Rank: 8
Average Rank: 29.7
Bottom Line: Luxembourg
Small European country Luxembourg checks in at No. 21 and shows how a country can overcome one weak rating with a few high rankings.
With a tiny population just south of 600,000 people, this country’s $69.5 billion GDP is barely a drop in the global bucket. Dragging it from the basement in terms of total wealth is its surprisingly high $65,449 average income that ranks No. 7 in the world.
Solidifying its place near the middle of the pack is its No. 8 ranking in SPI, which it owes to sky-high rankings in water and sanitation, basic medical care and personal rights.
20. Finland
GDP Rank: 44
Average Income Rank: 24
Social Progress Index Rank: 5
Average Rank: 24.3
Bottom Line: Finland
According to the World Happiness Report, Finland is the world’s happiest country, so it is shocking to see it isn’t higher than No. 20.
As its ranking in the WHR would indicate, Finland ranks well in SPI at No. 5, thanks to its near-perfect ratings in water and sanitation and basic medical care. It comes up low in advanced education at just 55.14, but no other ratings fell below 82.28 of 100 points.
Where Finland falters is its No. 43-ranked $275.7 billion GDP and No. 20-ranked $44,111 average income. Maybe money doesn’t equal happiness. Go figure.
19. Singapore
GDP Rank: 36
Average Income Rank: 10
Social Progress Index Rank: 23
Average Rank: 23
Bottom Line: Singapore
Tiny nation-state Singapore is a surprising entry at No. 19 on our list of the 50 wealthiest countries. What pushes it so high on our list is the country’s $58,770 average income, which is No. 10 in the world.
In SPI, Singapore ranks No. 23 — two spots above the U.S. — thanks to its perfect 100 score in water and sanitation and 98.25 in access to basic knowledge. On the flip side, Singapore comes up low in personal rights at 70.88 points of 100.
With restrictive punishments like three months in jail for singing in public, $10,000 for connecting to someone else’s Wi-Fi, up to two years in prison for homosexual relations, and up to a $100,000 fine and two years in jail for selling gum or smuggling it into the country (yes, chewing gum), it’s no wonder it ranks so low in this area.
18. Spain
GDP Rank: 14
Average Income Rank: 31
Social Progress Index Rank: 19
Average Rank: 21.3
Bottom Line: Spain
Spain sits at No. 18 in the top 50 wealthiest nations, and it owes a lot to its $1.4 trillion GDP that ranks No. 14 in the world. It also doesn’t hurt that its high rankings in water and sanitation, basic medical care and environmental quality push its SPI to No. 19 in the world.
The only downside Spain has: its $38,761 average yearly income, which is No. 31 in the world. Then again, Spain is one of the cheapest European countries, so you may find that average salary is plenty.
17. Ireland
GDP Rank: 32
Average Income Rank: 19
Social Progress Index Rank: 12
Average Rank: 21
Bottom Line: Ireland
It’s more than just the luck o’ the Irish that lands Ireland at No. 17 of the 50 wealthiest nations. It is also Ireland’s No. 12 ranking in the SPI, which it can attribute to high marks in access to basic medical care, clean water and sanitation, and personal rights.
Its 69.43 points in access to advanced education are low relative to the rest of the world, but they are high compared to other European nations.
GDP is the only sore spot for Ireland, as its $375.9 billion GDP is No. 32 in the world.
16. Austria
GDP Rank: 27
Average Income Rank: 16
Social Progress Index Rank: 20
Average Rank: 21
Bottom Line: Austria
At No. 16 on our list of the top 50 wealthiest nations is Austria. This land-locked European nation falls short with its $455.7 billion GDP checking in at No. 27 and SPI ringing in at just No. 20.
In SPI, Austria excels in access to clean water and sanitation and its basic medical care, but its 46.27 points in access to advanced education are low, even compared to its European neighbors that struggle in this category.
15. Italy
GDP Rank: 8
Average Income Rank: 33
Social Progress Index Rank: 21
Average Rank: 20.7
Bottom Line: Italy
Italy is a solid No. 15 in our list of wealthiest nations with a healthy $2.1 trillion GDP that ranks No. 8 in the world. Dragging it down is the average Italian worker’s salary, which checks in at just $37,752, and its No. 21 ranking in the SPI.
The boot-shaped country’s SPI ranking gets help from its high rankings in access to water and sanitation, basic medical care and personal rights, but its 66.7 points in access to advanced education and 74.41 points in personal freedom and choice drag it way down.
14. South Korea
GDP Rank: 12
Average Income Rank: 29
Social Progress Index Rank: 18
Average Rank: 19.7
Bottom Line: South Korea
Not to be confused with its reclusive and oppressed northern rival, South Korea comes in at No. 14 on our list. Its $39,472 average income is less than impressive, but its $1.6 trillion GDP is No. 12 in the world.
South Korea’s No. 18 SPI gets a boost from the country’s clean water and sanitation, basic medical care, and access to information and communication, though it’s on the lower side in personal freedom and choice at 78.94 of 100 points.
Of course, that’s significantly better than North Korea’s 3.62 of 100 points in the same category.
13. Sweden
GDP Rank: 22
Average Income Rank: 23
Social Progress Index Rank: 11
Average Rank: 18.7
Bottom Line: Sweden
Sweden’s $551 billion GDP and average yearly salary of $44,196 place No. 22 and No. 23 in the world, respectively, but the country’s No. 11 rating in the SPI gives it a healthy boost in our overall rankings.
Sweden’s SPI ranking gets a big hand from the country’s access to clean water, basic medical care and environmental quality.
But like its European neighbors, it ranks low in access to advanced education at 58.99 points out of 100.
12. Belgium
GDP Rank: 23
Average Income Rank: 14
Social Progress Index Rank: 17
Average Rank: 18
Bottom Line: Belgium
Belgium strikes a delicate balance in all rankings, topping out at No. 14 with a $52,080 average salary and No. 17 in the SPI, which results in a No. 12 ranking on our list.
Belgium shines in water and sanitation, basic health and medical care, and access to shelter in the SPI, but its 59.78 rating in access to advanced education mirrors many other European countries and drags it down a bit.
Belgium’s $531.7 billion GDP rings in just above the halfway point on the top 50 list.
11. Denmark
GDP Rank: 39
Average Income Rank: 11
Social Progress Index Rank: 4
Average Rank: 18
Bottom Line: Denmark
Like Norway, No. 11-ranked Denmark also gets high marks around the world for its social awareness.
Some of the biggest wins on its way to a No. 4 ranking in the SPI include water and sanitation, access to shelter, and medical care, but it struggles at delivering advanced education with its 56.82 of 100 rating.
Average income also rings in high at $55,253, which makes it No. 11 in the world, but its $351.2 billion GDP is in the lower third of our top 50 at No. 38.
10. Norway
GDP Rank: 29
Average Income Rank: 15
Social Progress Index Rank: 1
Average Rank: 15
Bottom Line: Norway
Norway is often looked upon as one of the most socially aware countries in the world with low pollution, outstanding medical care and great support programs, and it shows this off with its No. 1 ranking in the SPI.
It comes up light with its 53.31 of 100 points in access to advanced education, but even that’s not enough to drag it down. Norway’s No. 29-ranked GDP of $434 billion and No. 15-ranked average income of $50,966 pulled its overall ranking on our list of wealthiest nations to No. 10.
But it is still quite high for these shortcomings.
9. France
GDP Rank: 6
Average Income Rank: 22
Social Progress Index Rank: 16
Average Rank: 14.7
Bottom Line: France
France is No. 6 in the world in GDP at $2.8 trillion, so it should rank higher, but its average income of $44,510 is only No. 22 in the world, which drags its overall wealth rating to No. 9.
France’s access to clean water and sanitation, basic medical care and access to shelter put it at a firm No. 16 in SPI ranking.
But there is room for improvement in access to advanced education and inclusiveness, which received scores of 64.28 of 100 and 67.48 of 100, respectively.
8. Canada
GDP Rank: 10
Average Income Rank: 18
Social Progress Index Rank: 14
Average Rank: 14
Bottom Line: Canada
Canada comes in as the eighth wealthiest nation with its $1.7 trillion GDP ranking No. 10 and SPI checking in at No. 14.
The latter owes a lot to the 98.44 of 100 score it received in basic medical care and 95.74 points in personal rights.
The sorest spot for Canada is the 69.43 points it received in access to advanced education, which may be attributed to its expansive rural areas.
7. Australia
GDP Rank: 13
Average Income Rank: 13
Social Progress Index Rank: 15
Average Rank: 13.7
Bottom Line: Australia
Australia comes in with relatively consistent ratings across the board, ringing in No. 13 in GDP and average income at $1.4 trillion and $53,349, respectively. It comes in a little short in SPI at No. 15 but still pulls in high rankings for nutrition and basic medical care, water and sanitation, personal rights and access to information and communication. It does, however, ring in just 69.31 points of 100 in access to advanced education. This all adds up to a No. 7 ranking on our list of wealthiest nations. (note, Australia also consistently ranks as a top travel destination)
6. United Kingdom
GDP Rank: 5
Average Income Rank: 21
Social Progress Index Rank: 13
Average Rank: 13
Bottom Line: United Kingdom
Down one overall position from the Netherlands is the U.K., the No. 6 wealthiest nation in the world.
While its $2.8 trillion GDP put it 12 spots ahead of Netherlands, it falls by nine places in average income at just $44,770 per year.
It also came in six spots lower in SPI with sore spots being inclusiveness and access to advanced education.
5. Netherlands
GDP Rank: 17
Average Income Rank: 12
Social Progress Index Rank: 7
Average Rank: 12
Bottom Line: Netherlands
The Netherlands is tied with Japan with an average ranking of 12, but it goes about it differently on its way to No. 5 on our list.
Netherlands’ $912.8 billion GDP in 2018 is ranked only No. 17, but its average income of $54,262 gave it a boost. In SPI, the Netherlands trailed Japan by one position.
The Netherlands excelled in the same areas as Japan in SPI, except its personal rights rating was significantly higher.
4. Japan
GDP Rank: 3
Average Income Rank: 27
Social Progress Index Rank: 6
Average Rank: 12
Bottom Line: Japan
With a GDP of $4.9 trillion in 2018, Japan is No. 3 in the world, but its average income of $40,753 drops it to No. 4 on our list of wealthiest countries. Helping pull it back up from the low marks in average salary is its No. 6 ranking in SPI, thanks to high rankings in water and sanitation, access to basic knowledge, nutrition and medical care and shelter. The only sore spots in SPI area its inclusiveness and access to advanced education, which may be confusing given the country’s focus on technology.
3. United States
GDP Rank: 1
Average Income Rank: 9
Social Progress Index Rank: 25
Average Rank: 11.7
Bottom Line: United States
The United States’ GDP sits at the top of the world at $20.5 trillion as of 2018, but there is more to it being No. 3 on our list than that.
Average income also rings in high at $63,093, putting it at No. 9 in the world. These two high rankings help it make up for the surprisingly low No. 25 ranking in the SPI.
In the SPI, the U.S. ranks among the best in shelter, water and sanitation, medical care and personal rights, but it falls short in inclusiveness, health and wellness, and personal safety.
2. Switzerland
GDP Rank: 20
Average Income Rank: 8
Social Progress Index Rank: 3
Average Rank: 10.3
Bottom Line: Switzerland
Switzerland boasts some of the highest wages in the world, putting its average at $64,109 per year, which plays a big role in it being the second wealthiest country in the world.
Plus, it boasts some of the world’s most advanced social markers, including access to drinking water, nourishment, electricity access, independent media, secondary school enrollment, and greenhouse gas emissions.
What separates it and Germany is its No. 20-ranked GDP of $705.5 billion.
1. Germany
GDP Rank: 4
Average Income Rank: 17
Social Progress Index Rank: 9
Average Rank: 10
Bottom Line: Germany
Topping our list as the wealthiest nation in the world is not all that surprising.
Germany has long been one of the leading countries in GDP and leads the world in some of the most important parts of the SPI: secondary school enrollment, access to electricity, access to drinking water and nourishment.
Now learn who’s the richest person in each of the 50 wealthiest countries.
50 Best U.S. Cities to Grow Old and Retire
America is facing a huge demographic shift: 20 percent of people in the United States. will be 65 or older by 2030. The country, particularly its cities, will need to adjust to the challenges of having large groups of retirees and aging adults in their communities.
A recent study by the Milken Institute found that how well or how poorly people age in America can be linked to specific indicators (read more about those in the study or here). It turns out the best metro regions in America for working or raising a family may not also be the best cities for aging well or retiring, although often cities can overlap categories.
These are the best U.S. cities and metro areas for retiring and aging well.
50. Cincinnati, Ohio/Kentucky/Indiana
Population over 65: 14.1 percent
The details: Cincinnati has moderate scores for most indicators, but a low score for wellness factors.
The economy is good with a relatively low unemployment rate, and moderate job growth, wage growth and tax burden. Although Cincinnati housing prices are high for Ohio, both living costs and housing costs are still well below national averages.
Civic engagement, senior volunteering rates and transportation investment are all moderately good, and funding for older adults is good. Public transport fares are relatively low.
The Cincinnati area has a high number of nurses and nursing home beds, and good access to home health care providers, dialysis, rehab, hospice and Alzheimer’s units. A moderate number of physicians, orthopedic surgeons and hospital beds are available, and ER wait times are low. The cost of adult day services is relatively low, and nursing home costs are moderate.
The Downside: Cincinnati, Ohio/Kentucky/Indiana
Most people still rely on cars to get around. About 30 percent of residents are below the poverty line. Small business growth is moderately slow. Cincinnati’s population has high rates of smoking and relatively high rates of diabetes, Alzheimer’s and depression, and shows moderately low levels of physical activity.
The area has moderately low numbers of nurse practitioners and physician assistants, which can help reduce health care costs. Access to medical and diagnostic centers is very limited. Access to continuing-care facilities is very limited.
49. Columbus, Ohio
Population over 65: 12.4 percent
The details: Columbus scores well for education and employment, but low on wellness and financial security.
The city’s cost of living, rents and house prices are lower than the national average. The city offers a reliable bus system and walkable neighborhoods. Jobs growth is moderately high and unemployment low, with a moderately good income distribution and wages growth. The area has moderately few older adults in poverty and a mid-level tax burden. Rates of older volunteers, funding for older adults and civic engagement are strong.
Local residents have access to high numbers of nurses and physicians; excellent access to hospice services; good access to hospital beds, orthopedic surgeons, rehab services, and physical therapists; and moderate access to geriatric services, nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Home health care costs are low, and adult day service costs are relatively low.
The Downside: Columbus, Ohio
Small business growth is moderately slow and public transport fares are moderately high, while investment in public and senior transportation is moderately low. Smoking rates are high, and those of depression and Alzheimer’s moderately high. ER wait times are moderately long. Life expectancy is lower. Assisted living costs are moderately high, and access to continuing-care facilities moderately limited.
48. Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, Illinois
Population over 65: 13.3 percent
The details: Chicago is a major business and financial hub, and the metro area scores well on transportation, but low on financial security.
Housing costs are around the national average, although living costs can vary by area. Crime rates are moderately low. Small business has a good growth rate.
Public transit is rated very highly in the Chicago area, with a good train network. Investment in both public and senior transportation is also good. Seniors have moderate rates of volunteering.
Local rates of obesity and smoking are moderately low, while diabetes and depression rates are low. The local population has good levels of physical activity and good funding for older adults. The Chicago area has a very high number of physical therapists, a high number of physicians and good access to a wide range of specialized services for older adults, such as hospice, Alzheimer’s and geriatric services.
The Downside: Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, Illinois
Chicago gets severe winter weather. Unemployment is high, the number of older adults in poverty is is moderately high. Wage growth is low.
Chicago residents rate moderately low on civic engagement. Alzheimer’s cases are on the high side, and the number of nurse practitioners and physician assistants is low. ER wait times are on the long side.
47. Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, Arkansas
Population over 65: 14 percent
The details: The Little Rock area scores well on health care, living arrangements, employment and financial security, but low on wellness, general livability and transportation.
Housing prices and living costs are both lower than the national average, but the Little Rock area is experiencing a building boom and the population is growing steadily.
People in the area are very engaged with their community. Few older adults live in poverty, and the unemployment rate and tax burden are both moderately low.
Plenty of hospital beds are available, and nurses, orthopedic surgeons and physical therapists are in good supply. Residents have good access to geriatric, rehab and Alzheimer’s units, and ER wait times are moderate.
The Downside: Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, Arkansas
The region can experience extreme weather events, such as tornados and hail storms. Little Rock rates low on walkability. Levels of senior volunteering are low as are investments in senior and public transportation. The local population has high rates of obesity, diabetes and Alzheimer’s, and the area reports very low levels of physical activity and a lower life expectancy.
Older adults have little access to home health care providers or continuing care facilities, and the cost of adult day services is high. There are few hospitals with hospice services or dialysis centers. The crime rate is very high. Jobs growth is low.
46. Colorado Springs, Colorado
Population over 65: 12 percent
The details: Colorado Springs scores well on wellness and education, but low on health care. The city offers a lower cost of living and unemployment rate than nearby Denver.
The cost of housing is slightly more than the national average, but living costs are also slightly lower. Jobs, wages and small business growth are good, and few adults live in poverty. The tax burden is moderate.
The area has a healthy and active population, with low rates of obesity, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, depression and drinking. More than 10 percent of the population is over 65. The rate of smoking is moderate. Locals have good access to home health-care providers and continuing care facilities, and the cost of nursing homes and assisted living is moderate. The area has a high level of nurse practitioners and physician assistants, and a moderate level of nurses.
The Downside: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Most people use cars to get around, as local public transit is limited. Access to nursing homes, primary-care physicians, hospital beds, geriatric services, dialysis centers and hospice services is limited. ER wait times are long.
44. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (tie)
Population over 65: 18.7 percent
The details: Pittsburgh, a former steel town, is reinventing itself as a center for education and technology. It’s home to several universities. The city scores high on education, community engagement and transportation, but low on wellness and financial security.
Housing prices are almost half the national average, and rents are lower as well. The overall cost of living is low, as is crime, and unemployment is moderate. The number of adults in poverty is moderately low. The number of Alzheimer’s cases is moderate. Residents have good access to hospitals, physical therapists, medical and diagnostic centers, as well as rehab, Alzheimer’s, dialysis and hospice units. The numbers of nurses are relatively high, and ER wait times are low.
The Downside: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (tie)
Housing prices and rents are rising, andtraffic congestion is a problem. The economy is sluggish, with slow job and wage growth. City residents have high rates of smoking and drinking, moderately high rates of obesity and diabetes, and moderately low levels of physical activity. The number of physicians is low, and the tax burden is moderately high.
44. Indianapolis-Camel-Anderson, Indiana (tie)
Population over 65: 12.7 percent
The details: The Indianapolis area scores well for health care and community engagement.
Housing prices in Indianapolis are well below the national average, as is the cost of living. The unemployment rate is moderately low, while job and wage growth are both moderate. Few adults live in poverty, and the region has a relatively low tax burden.
Indianapolis has very good access to nursing homes and hospitals, including long-term care, hospice services, physical therapists and orthopedic surgeons. The numbers of geriatric, rehab and Alzheimer’s units and physicians are moderately high. Older residents have good access to home health care providers.
The Downside: Indianapolis-Camel-Anderson, Indiana (tie)
Winters can be harsh, and the crime rate is high. Rates of smoking, Alzheimer’s and depression are high, and the obesity rate is moderately high. Life expectancy is lower. The cost of adult day services and continuing care facilities is high.
43. Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, Washington
Population over 65: 12.5 percent
The details: The Seattle metro region scores high on transportation and wellness but lower on general livability, education and living arrangements.
The economy is healthy, thanks to the local tech industry. The unemployment rate is moderately low, while wages growth is high. Small business growth, jobs growth and the number of older adults in poverty are at moderate levels.
While seniors are active in volunteering, locals are only moderately engaged with civic and religious organizations.
The Seattle area has good scores for wellness indicators. Alzheimer’s and diabetes rates are low, and locals are very active with plenty of fitness and sports facilities. Rates of other health issues, such as obesity and smoking rates, are moderately low.
The area has good access to physicians, orthopedic surgeons, physical therapists, and medical and diagnostic centers. Residents have moderate access to specialized services, such as hospice services and Alzheimer’s units.
The Downside: Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, Washington
The Seattle area is one of the most expensive in the country, with house prices twice the national average. The cost of living is high. Most people use cars to get around, and traffic congestion is bad. Bus service is limited. The crime rate is high.
Funding for older adults is on the lower side, and there’s low access to home health care providers and nursing homes. The costs of both assisted living and nursing homes are relatively high.
42. Raleigh, North Carolina
Population over 65: 11.8 percent
The details: Raleigh scores well for general livability and wellness, but low on transportation.
The city’s crime rate is low, and unemployment moderately low. Jobs, wages and small business growth are all strong. The number of adults in poverty is relatively low.
Seniors stay fairly active and have moderately low rates of obesity, smoking, diabetes and depression. The area has very good access to medical and diagnostic centers, physical therapists, primary-care physicians, nurse practitioners and physician’s assistants. There’s good access to dialysis units, hospice services, long-term hospitals and orthopedic surgeons, and there are moderate numbers of Alzheimer’s units and nurses.
The cost of adult day services is low, as is the cost of assisted living. There’s good access to home health-care providers and continuing care facilities. Caregivers are plentiful.
The Downside: Raleigh, North Carolina
The cost of living is moderately high. Relatively few beds are available in nursing homes, although nursing home costs are moderately low. The number of Alzheimer’s cases is high. There’s limited access to geriatric and rehab units.
41. Wichita, Kansas
Population over 65: 13.8 percent
The details: The city of Wichita is the state’s largest metro area and center for business, which has included cattle, grain, oil and aviation. The city scores well on education, living arrangements and community engagement, but low on wellness and employment.
Wichita has a low cost of living, low house prices and rents, and short commutes.
Wellness indicators, such as smoking, diabetes and depression, are moderate, and residents have a moderate level of physical activity. The local area has excellent access to specialized care like geriatric and rehab services and orthopedic surgeons. It also has a good number of physicians and nurses, good access to hospital beds and low hospital costs.
The Downside: Wichita, Kansas
Kansas has a high sales tax. Weather can be severe, from tornados to snowy winters to really hot summers. Public transport is limited so most people use cars.
40. Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, Oregon/Washington
Population over 65: 13.6 percent
The details: The Portland area scores highly on wellness, education and transportation, but low on employment.
U.S. News & World Report ranks Portland as the No. 8 place to live and the No. 20 place to retire in the country. Despite Portland’s reputation as a rainy climate, winters are mild.
Local small businesses have a moderate growth rate. The region has good wages and job growth, and a moderate number of older adults in poverty. The crime rate is also moderate.
The local population is educated, very active and has low rates of smoking, obesity, Alzheimer’s, depression and diabetes. Life expectancy is good. The region has excellent continuing care facilities, good special needs transportation and the rate of senior volunteering is high. The area has a high number of primary care physicians, and ER wait times are moderate. Specialized services such as geriatric, rehab, hospice and Alzheimer’s units are relatively accessible.
The Downside: Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, Oregon/Washington
Portland’s housing prices and living costs are well above the national average, and rents are rising rapidly. Oregon’s income taxes are very high. The unemployment rate is on the high side. The area lacks good access to nursing homes and home health care providers, and the costs of adult day services, nursing homes and assisted living are high.
The area has limited hospital beds available or medical and diagnostic centers, and hospital costs are high.
39. Charleston-North Charleston, South Carolina
Population over 65: 13.8 percent
The details: The historic city of Charleston has beaches nearby and a mild climate, and on health care.
Job growth and wage growth are good in the Charleston area, and the unemployment rate is moderate. Small businesses have a good rate of growth, and the tax burden is low.
On the health side, Charleston has low costs for nursing homes, assisted living and adult day services, and the rate of seniors still at home is relatively high. The local population is fairly active, with moderate rates of obesity, smoking, depression and Alzheimer’s. Local hospitals have very good access to geriatric, rehab, Alzheimer’s and dialysis units, with a high number of nurses and a good number of physicians and orthopedic surgeons. ER wait times are low.
The Downside: Charleston-North Charleston, South Carolina
House prices and the cost of living are higher than the national average and wages are lower. Summers are hot and humid, and the area is vulnerable to hurricanes and tropical storms. Traffic congestion is a problem, especially in summer months, when the town is full of tourists.
The area has limited access to nursing home beds and home health care services, and it has very little state funding for older adults. The local rates of diabetes and drinking are high.
38. Ogden-Clearfield, Utah
Population over 65: 11.3 percent
The details: The Ogden area scores well for wellness, general livability and living arrangements, but low on health care.
House prices in Ogden are about half that of nearby Salt Lake City, well below the national average, and the cost of living is moderate. The crime rate is low, as is the rate of older adults in poverty. Small business growth and wage growth in the city are good, and the tax burden and unemployment rate are also on the low side.
Ogden’s population is healthy and active, with low rates of obesity, smoking, diabetes, drinking and Alzheimer’s. The rate of seniors volunteering is high. Assisted living costs are low and most older adults live at home.
The area has excellent access to long-term care hospitals and senior transportation. ER wait times are low. The area offers moderate access to rehab services and Alzheimer’s units.
The Downside: Ogden-Clearfield, Utah
Winters are cold and snowy. Ogden doesn’t offer much in the way of fitness and sports centers. The cost of adult day services is high and there aren’t many home health care providers. The area has very limited access to hospitals, with a low number of physicians, nurses and specialized services, such as dialysis and diagnostic centers, geriatric services or hospice care. Investment in special needs transportation is very low. The number of local civic and religious organizations is very low.
37. Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, Connecticut
Population over 65: 16.2 percent
The details: The Hartford area scores well on community engagement, health care and wellness, but low on financial security and living arrangements.
The city is one of America’s oldest historic cities with a walkable downtown. House prices are just under the national average.
Senior volunteer rates are high, as is funding for older adults, though civic engagement is moderate. Residents are fairly active and enjoy lower rates of smoking, obesity, diabetes and Alzheimer’s. The metro area has excellent access to fitness and sports facilities.
The Hartford area provides very good access to specialized health care, such as hospice services, Alzheimer’s units and long-term hospitals. The area has good numbers of physical therapists, nurse practitioners and physician assistants, and moderate numbers of nurses and primary care physicians.
The downside: The cost of living is higher than the national average. While public transportation fares are high, investment in public and senior transportation is on the low side.
The Hartford region has a high tax burden, and small business and wages growth are both sluggish. The area also doesn’t provide good access to dialysis centers. Nursing homes and assisted living costs are both high.
The Downside: Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, Connecticut
The cost of living is higher than the national average. While public transportation fares are high, investment in public and senior transportation is on the low side.
The Hartford region has a high tax burden, and small business and wages growth are both sluggish. The area also doesn’t provide good access to dialysis centers. Nursing homes and assisted living costs are both high.
36. Cleveland-Elyria, Ohio
Population over 65: 16.9 percent
The details: The Cleveland area scores well for general livability and living arrangements, but low on wellness and financial security.
The city was once a center of American industry. Now it’s drawing people to live there with low housing prices and cost of living, and a moderate unemployment rate.
The downtown area of Cleveland is fairly walkable, and the region has a widespread transit system of buses, trolleys and trains.
Local seniors have a good rate of volunteering, and there’s good funding for older adults, including special needs and senior transportation. The cost of adult day services is low, and there’s good access to nursing homes and home health care providers.
The Cleveland area has plenty of nurses and low ER wait times. There’s good access to specialized services, such as geriatric, rehab, hospice and dialysis units, as well as orthopedic surgeons.
The Downside: Cleveland-Elyria, Ohio
Job growth and small business growth are slow, and there’s a significant number of older adults living in poverty. Civic engagement is moderately low. Cleveland residents have high rates of smoking and diabetes, and most seniors are not active. The area has a low number of medical and diagnostic centers. The city’s location on Lake Erie brings cold and snowy winter storms.
35. Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, Texas
Population over 65: 10.1 percent
The details: The Houston area scores well on general livability, financial security, living arrangements and employment, but low on education and community engagement.
The region, known for being a center for the oil and gas industry, is booming, with a strong economy and job growth, affordable housing and a relatively low tax rate.
Small businesses, jobs and wages all have strong growth, and the unemployment rate is moderate. The cost of living is slightly less than the national average.
The Houston area has moderate levels of physical activity, Alzheimer’s, obesity, smoking, depression and diabetes. The costs of nursing homes, adult day services and home health care are low, and most older adults are able to live at home. The city has a high number of hospital beds, rehab services, dialysis centers, and medical and diagnostic centers. It has moderate to good levels of specialized services, such as geriatric services, long-term hospitals and orthopedic surgeons.
The Downside: Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, Texas
The Houston area has a significant number of older adults living in poverty and lacks good access to physical therapists. The area has a low level of civic engagement. The area doesn’t have good access to hospice services or Alzheimer’s units.
34. Boise, Idaho
Population over 65: 13.3 percent
The details: Boise scores well on community engagement and general livability, but low on transportation.
The city has one of the fastest-growing job markets in the country, according to the Wall Street Journal. While house prices sit right on the national average, living costs and taxes are lower. The city has a very low crime rate and low unemployment.
Residents have low rates of diabetes and smoking, a moderate rate of obesity, and high rates of physical activity and volunteering. There are plenty of nurses, and there’s good access to geriatric and hospice services and physical therapists. ER wait times are low. The area has moderate access to Alzheimer’s units.
The downside: Public transportation is limited. Small businesses have a slow growth rate, and the area has a relatively high rate of older people living in poverty. The rate of Alzheimer’s is high, as is depression. Access to nursing home care and home health care services is limited, and adult day services are expensive. There is little investment in senior or public transportation, and civic engagement levels are low. Some senior services have limited access, such as rehab services, long-term hospitals and dialysis centers.
The Downside: Boise, Idaho
Public transportation is limited. Small businesses have a slow growth rate, and the area has a relatively high rate of older people living in poverty. The rate of Alzheimer’s is high, as is depression. Access to nursing home care and home health care services is limited, and adult day services are expensive. There is little investment in senior or public transportation, and civic engagement levels are low. Some senior services have limited access, such as rehab services, long-term hospitals and dialysis centers.
33. Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, Wisconsin
Population over 65: 14.3 percent
The details: The Milwaukee metro area scores well on health care and transportation, but low on general livability and financial security.
The city and the surrounding metro area were traditionally working class, but the city is changing. More young people are moving here, drawn by the below national average cost of housing.
Older adults are generally active, with low rates of depression and good access to sports and fitness facilities. Smoking and diabetes rates are moderate.
The area has very good access to geriatric and Alzheimer’s units, a high number of nurses, nurse practitioners and physician assistants, good access to home health care services, continuing care facilities and physical therapists and lower ER wait times. Investments in senior and special needs transportation are very good.
The Downside: Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, Wisconsin
The cost of living is higher than the national average. Small business, jobs and wages growth are all low, and the area has a moderately high tax burden. Alzheimer’s and obesity rates are on the high side, as are the costs of nursing homes and assisted living. Local public transportation is unreliable and fares relatively high. Winters are long and cold.
32. Richmond, Virginia
Population over 65: 14.2 percent
The details: Richmond scores well on employment and health care, but low on living arrangements.
This city is a major financial center, as well as the state capital, and it’s home to two universities. The economy is healthy, with moderate unemployment, and few older adults in poverty. The price of housing is just on the national average. Most seniors are actively engaged in their community and in volunteering.
In terms of wellness, depression is relatively low and older adults are generally active, with good access to sports and fitness facilities. Rates of smoking and diabetes are moderate. Health care access is good with a high number of hospital beds, nurses and dialysis centers. The area features relatively lower hospital costs and shorter ER wait times.
The Downside: Richmond, Virginia
Local Alzheimer’s rates are on the high side, the tax burden is high, and small business and wages are not growing well. The cost of assisted living and rents are high.
31. Harrisburg-Carlisle, Pennsylvania
Population over 65: 16.5 percent
The details: The Harrisburg area rates well for community engagement and general access to health care. It has a small-town feel, an affordable housing market and a cost of living below the national average. Both crime rates and unemployment are low, and few older adults live in poverty.
The numbers of nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, Alzheimer’s units and physical therapists are all excellent. Locals have good access to specialized facilities for elder care, such as geriatric and hospice services.
Older adults in the region tend to be more active, with lower rates of depression. They also have good access to fitness and sports facilities. Both smoking and Alzheimer’s rates are moderate.
The Downside: Harrisburg-Carlisle, Pennsylvania
The area has a high level of traffic congestion as most people drive to work and public transit is limited. The region has high levels of obesity and diabetes. There are few medical and diagnostic centers, ER wait times are long, and access to long-term hospitals is limited.
30. Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, Tennessee
Population over 65: 12.4 percent
The details: The Nashville metro area scores well on community engagement, financial security and health care, but low on wellness and transportation.
The city is ranked as the seventh-best place to retire in the nation by U.S. News & World Report. The metro area is still affordable. However, house values are increasing as the region undergoes a population boom.
The economy is healthy, with good jobs growth and low unemployment. Tennessee is one of the few states without income taxes, and locals generally enjoy good financial security.
Community engagement is strong, as is local health care. The Nashville area has good numbers of nurse practitioners and physician assistants, and good access to hospitals, orthopedic surgeons, dialysis centers and physical therapists. ER wait times are low.
The Downside: Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, Tennessee
House prices are above the national average. Commute times can be long, mass transit fares are high and local investment in senior transportation is low. Access to long-term care hospitals and hospices services is limited. Smoking, Alzheimer’s and obesity rates are high, and older adults have a reduced life expectancy.
29. Dayton, Ohio
Population over 65: 16.8 percent
The details: Dayton scores well on education, living arrangements and health care, but low on wellness and financial security.
It’s an affordable place to live, with house prices and living costs well below the national average.
The city has plenty of green spaces, bike trails and a bike-share program, and good access to fitness and sports centers. Healthy funding for senior programs and senior transportation and a strong rate of older volunteering adds to Dayton’s livability.
Dayton provides good access to reasonable home health care services and nursing homes. The area has good access to diagnostic centers, rehab, geriatric and hospice units, and hospital beds. ER wait times are low.
The Downside: Dayton, Ohio
The city offers a limited range of cultural, arts and sports events and facilities. Also, about 35 percent of residents live below the poverty level. Obesity, diabetes and smoking rates are high, and most residents are not active.
Affordable continuing-care facilities and assisted living options are scarce. Access to dialysis centers, long term hospitals and orthopedic specialists is limited.
28. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Population over 65: 12.9 percent
The details: Oklahoma City scores well on financial security, living arrangements, employment and health care, but low on wellness.
It’s an affordable place to live, with an educated population, and living and house costs are lower than the national average. The economy and small business growth are strong, with a moderate tax burden. The unemployment rate is low and few seniors live in poverty. City residents have good community involvement with moderate levels of senior volunteering.
Smoking and diabetes rates are moderate. Local hospitals have plenty of beds and moderate ER wait times. Area residents have good access to such specialized services as rehab, geriatric units, hospice and diagnostic centers.
Nursing home care is relatively affordable, and costs for continuing care facilities, assisted living and home health care providers are moderate.
The Downside: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Oklahoma City can experience tornados. The crime rate is relatively high. Rates of obesity and Alzheimer’s are high, and life expectancy is lower than most major cities. Depression is a problem. Most older adults are not active.
Public transit fares are high, and investment in senior transportation is not good. The numbers of primary-care physicians and nurses are relatively low.
27. St. Louis, Missouri/Illinois
Population over 65: 15.2 percent
The details: St. Louis scores well on living arrangements and health care, but low on wellness. The city’s location in the middle of the country is a big draw for businesses. The metro region has one of the best growth rates for small business in the country.
Many residents are drawn here for the low cost of living, with house prices that are 30 percent less than the national average. The unemployment rate is moderate. The poverty rate of older adults is reasonably low. Funding for senior programs is good, as is the rate of older adult volunteering.
The cost of assisted living is one of the lowest in the country, and locals have good access to nursing home beds at a moderate cost. The prices of nursing home care and home health care providers are also moderate.
The Downside: St. Louis, Missouri/Illinois
The region is prone to tornadoes, flooding and other extreme weather events. Jobs growth is slow, and wage growth is sluggish. Despite good access to fitness and sports centers, most residents are not active or fit.
Rates of obesity, diabetes and Alzheimer’s are on the high side, and depression and drinking are serious problems. The cost of adult day services is relatively high.
26. Kansas City, Missouri/Kansas
Population over 65: 13.7 percent
The details: Kansas City scores well on health care, employment and community engagement, but low on transportation.
The city has a thriving creative community, many neighborhoods are walkable and a bike-share program makes it easier for people to get around. Residents are educated and reasonably active, and they have access to many fitness and sports centers. Senior volunteering and civic engagement levels are high.
Both the cost of living and house prices are just below the national average, despite a growing population. The unemployment rate is low.
The area ranks highly for specialized senior medical care such as geriatric and rehab units, nursing home access, and hospice and dialysis centers. ER wait times are low. Rates of obesity and diabetes are moderate, and life expectancy is good. Access to Alzheimer’s units, diagnostic centers and physical therapists is reasonably good.
Residents have good access to reasonably priced home health care and assisted living services. Local programs for older adults are well funded.
The Downside: Kansas City, Missouri/Kansas
The city lies on the edge of Tornado Alley, which can get violent storms and has frequent flash floods. Public transit is neither fast nor reliable. The rates of smoking, Alzheimer’s and adult day services are high.
25. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas
Population over 65: 10.5 percent
The details: The Dallas-Fort Worth region is expanding as people migrate here for mild weather and jobs. U.S. News & World Report ranks the area one of the top ten places to retire in the country. The area scores well on living arrangements, financial security, employment and general livability, but low on education, transportation and community engagement.
While house prices are rising with population growth, they’re still just over the national average. Job and income growth are strong and unemployment relatively low. Taxes are moderate, and small business growth is strong.
Primary-care physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, physician’s assistants and physical therapists are abundant, and the population has moderate rates of obesity, smoking, diabetes and Alzheimer’s. The costs of nursing home care, home health care and adult day services are reasonable.
The Downside: Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas
Educational options, mass transit choices and community engagement are all low. Income inequality is high. The numbers of long-term hospitals and hospice services are low. Life expectancy is not high.
Residents are less active than other large metro areas, and there are few fitness and sports centers. The area has a low number of senior volunteers and lower funding for senior programs. Few older adults are aging at home.
24. Honolulu, Hawaii
Population over 65: 16.4 percent
The details: Honolulu scores well on employment, education and transportation but low on financial security and living arrangements. The city has a laid-back tropical lifestyle, with beautiful white-sand beaches.
Income inequality is low, as is unemployment. Local funding for senior programs is good.
Honolulu has some of the lowest rates of depression in the country, and residents are generally fit and active, with low rates of obesity, smoking and diabetes. Life expectancy is long. ER wait times are short.
The Downside: Honolulu, Hawaii
Honolulu has some of the worst traffic congestion in the country. The cost of living is high, and few national corporations have their main offices here. Rents and house prices are some of the highest in the country, and many people can’t afford to buy a home. The area has a low number of hospital and nursing home beds, nurse practitioners, physician’s assistants, nurses, physical therapists, and medical and diagnostic centers.
Nursing homes, assisted living and home health care services are all expensive. Income growth is low and small businesses struggle. The city also has low rates of senior volunteers and few civic and religious organizations.
23. Grand Rapids-Wyoming, Michigan
Population over 65: 13.4 percent
The details: The Grand Rapids metro area scores well on community engagement and financial security, but low on employment.
U.S. News & World Report ranks the city as the No. 6 place to retire in the country, and the metro area is one of the fastest-growing places in Michigan. The area has a lot of civic and religious organizations, with good rates of senior volunteering.
The area has a good supply of home health care providers and hospice facilities, and the cost of assisted living is reasonable. There are high levels of nurse practitioners, physician’s assistants and physical therapists available.
Housing and living costs are significantly below the national average (as are incomes.) Income inequality is low, as is unemployment and crime, and job and wages growth are both strong.
The Downsides: Grand Rapids-Wyoming, Michigan
Winters are cold and snowy. While the small business sector doesn’t struggle, it’s not strong. Rates of drinking, smoking, depression and Alzheimer’s are high. There’s little investment in senior transportation.
Nursing care and adult day service costs are high, and few long-term hospitals exist. Residents don’t have easy access to orthopedic surgeons or Alzheimer’s or dialysis units, and medical and diagnostic centers are few.
22. San Diego-Carlsbad, California
Population over 65: 12.9 percent
The details: The San Diego area scores well on education, general livability and wellness, but low on health care, living arrangements and community engagement.
Residents enjoy a classic Southern California lifestyle, with sunny weather all year and nearby beaches. The economy is healthy, with good income growth and a thriving small business sector.
The number of primary care physicians and orthopedic surgeons is high relative to the population. People in the area have low rates of obesity, smoking, diabetes and Alzheimer’s, and they stay physically active. Depression is also low. Life expectancy is long.
The Downside: San Diego-Carlsbad, California
The San Diego area isn’t affordable, with house prices twice the national average and high property taxes and fees. Area hospitals don’t have many chronic or elder health facilities, such as rehab, dialysis or geriatric units. The numbers of hospital beds and nurses are low. Hospitals are expensive and have long ER wait times.
The number of older adults below the poverty line is significantly higher than the national average. The number of nursing home beds available and home health-care providers is low.
21. Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York
Population over 65: 16.1 percent
The details: The Albany area scores well for financial security, education, transportation and community engagement. Housing prices are lower, and income levels higher than the national average. Crime rates are low. Older residents stay active and have good access to fitness facilities. Obesity, smoking and diabetes are lower. This tri-city region is characterized as being tight-knit, family-oriented and walkable.
Local hospitals offer specialized elder care, with good access to Alzheimer’s, hospice and geriatric units. There are a good number of hospital beds and long-term hospitals available.
The Downside: Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York
The area has a poverty rate of almost 25 percent. Income growth is low and taxes are high. Residents in the area have higher rates of Alzheimer’s. The costs of nursing care and assisted living are high, and few adults stay at home as they age.
ER wait times are long, and there are few dialysis units in the area. The number of doctors is also low for the population. Local investment in senior transportation is low. Winters in the area are long and cold.
20. Syracuse, New York
Population over 65: 15.6 percent
The details: Syracuse scores well for education, transportation and community engagement, but low on employment and living arrangements.
House prices in Syracuse are almost half the national average, one reason why the city has become popular with both families and retired people. The city is relatively easy to get around, with little traffic congestion. Many people can walk to local amenities and to work. The city offers numerous outdoor recreational facilities, especially golf courses.
Older residents have good access to special-needs transportation and independent aging programs. The area has numerous primary-care doctors and diagnostic units.
The Downside: Syracuse, New York
Most people in Syracuse drive cars as public transit choices are limited. Living costs tend to be higher than the national average, and there is low growth in both jobs and wages, while taxes are high. Local hospitals have long ER wait times. Few older adults can stay at home as they age and long-term care is costly. The local population has high rates of smoking and suffers from a shortage of caregivers.
19. Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, D.C./Virginia/Maryland
Population over 65: 11.9 percent
The details: The nation’s capital metro area has a healthy economy, with a broad range of businesses and government agencies. The area scores well on employment, transportation and wellness, but low on financial security and living arrangements.
D.C. has lots of green space and walkable communities, and mass transit networks are extensive and well used.
The area also has a strong service economy, which means higher employment for older adults and a high level of volunteering. Area residents have access to a large supply of doctors. Rates of depression are low, and D.C.-area residents live longer lives, with many aging at home.
The Downside: Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, D.C./Virginia/Maryland
House prices are about 60 percent higher than the national average, and rents are also high. Traffic congestion is a real problem, as commutes are long and mass transit fares are high. Area residents pay high taxes.
Job growth is low, and many small businesses are not thriving. There are few specialty facilities for aged care, such as Alzheimer’s and geriatric units, and assisted living is expensive.
18. Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, Connecticut
Population over 65: 11.5 percent
The details: The Bridgeport area scores well on wellness, general livability and employment, but low on education and living arrangements. It’s home to numerous multinational companies and a large bedroom community of New York commuters. The local population, in general, is prosperous, has high savings and is in good health.
The Bridgeport area has low crime rates, a high number of fitness centers, and low rates of obesity and diabetes. Local governments invest heavily in public transit options for older adults.
The Downside: Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, Connecticut
The area has expensive housing and nursing homes, and a wide income gap. Taxes and senior unemployment are high, while job growth is low; the small-business sector isn’t doing well.
17. Rochester, New York
Population over 65: 16.3 percent
The details: Rochester scores well on health care, financial security, transportation and community engagement, but low on education and living arrangements.
It’s a very affordable area: House prices and living costs are well below the national average. Commuting times are short, the city is walkable, and crime rates are low. Local hospitals have short ER wait times. Health care costs are contained by a large number of nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Nursing homes have available beds, and there are numerous options for home health care.
The Downside: Rochester, New York
Rochester has long, cold winters. Property taxes are high, and both wage and job growth is low. Despite Rochester’s affordability, the poverty rate is almost 33 percent. (although it affects few older adults.) Nursing homes and home health providers are expensive. Hospice and continuing care facilities are few.
16. San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, California
Population over 65: 12.5 percent
The details: The region scores well on general livability, wellness but low on living arrangements and community engagement.
Because the area is home to Silicon Valley, the center of tech in the U.S., its economy is strong, and its population is generally educated and healthy.
The area has hospitals with short ER wait times, quality nursing homes and a wide range of primary-care doctors. Residents generally enjoy active lives, with long life expectancy and have low rates of obesity, depression and smoking.
The Downside: San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, California
Housing prices that are even higher than nearby San Francisco, and four times the national average. Living costs are also much higher than the rest of the country. People in the San Jose area still rely heavily on their cars, and traffic congestion is some of America’s worst. The area doesn’t have enough specialized facilities for aged care, such as geriatric or rehab centers, and local hospitals are expensive. Many older adults live in poverty.
15. Springfield, Massachusetts
Population over 65: 15.6 percent
The details: Springfield is both a business and academic center for the region. The city scores well on education, transportation and community engagement but low on general livability and living arrangements.
It’s an affordable place to live, with housing costs just under the national average. Public mass transit is good, particularly for older riders. Commutes are short, and most communities have good walking access.
Older adults have good access to specialized care, such as rehab and geriatric facilities, and both Alzheimer’s and injury rates in the aging population are low. Springfield has good funding for programs that allow independent living for seniors.
The Downside: Springfield, Massachusetts
Living costs are higher than the national average. The economy is struggling, and income and job growth are low. Taxes are also high. Most Springfield residents drive, and traffic congestion can be bad. Income inequality is a problem; almost 30 percent of residents live in poverty. Most older adults don’t live at home, and assisted living and nursing homes are expensive.
14. Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, Minnesota/Wisconsin
Population over 65: 12.7 percent
The details: The Twin Cities region scores well on general livability, health care and community engagement.
It offers a wide range of arts, cultural and sporting events, and the population is educated and fairly active, despite the harsh winters, with access to many fitness centers and outdoor recreation facilities. Public transit options are excellent. Many older adults volunteer, and the local population is growing.
Rates of unemployment, crime and old-age poverty are all low. The area also has low rates of chronic disease, high life expectancy and a high number of primary-care physicians.
The downside: House prices are just above the national average, and winters in the region can be extremely cold. Traffic congestion is bad as many residents drive alone to work from suburban areas. The region doesn’t have enough hospital beds or diagnostic centers to meet demand, and the rate of Alzheimer’s is high, with few specialized treatment centers.
The Downside: Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, Minnesota/Wisconsin
House prices are just above the national average, and winters in the region can be extremely cold. Traffic congestion is bad as many residents drive alone to work from suburban areas. The region doesn’t have enough hospital beds or diagnostic centers to meet demand, and the rate of Alzheimer’s is high, with few specialized treatment cent
13. Toledo, Ohio
The Downside: Toledo, Ohio
The downside: Almost 30 percent of Toledo residents live below the poverty line. The regional economy is struggling, which means there’s little growth in jobs and the small business sector, wages remain low and income inequality is an issue. Residents have low activity levels and high obesity rates.
12. Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, Colorado
Population over 65: 11.9 percent
The details: U.S. News & World Report chose Denver as the second-best place to live in the country. The region scores well on wellness, health care, employment and financial security.
The Denver metro area’s older population stays fit via numerous recreational and fitness facilities, and a strong volunteering culture. The city has more than 5,000 acres of green spaces and playgrounds, and a well-connected public transit system of buses and light-rail.
Rates of diabetes, obesity and Alzheimer’s are low. The Denver metro region has short ER wait times, good nursing homes and plenty of continuing care and hospice options.
The region has strong income and job growth, especially in aging-related services, and low poverty rates in older groups.
The downside: The Denver area is experiencing a population boom, with housing prices and rents rising. Area homes now cost almost twice the national average. Most people in the area use cars and traffic congestion is a growing problem. Area hospitals are expensive, public transport fares are high and the city doesn’t spend much on programs for older people.
The Downside: Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, Colorado
The Denver area is experiencing a population boom, with housing prices and rents rising. Area homes now cost almost twice the national average. Most people in the area use cars and traffic congestion is a growing problem. Area hospitals are expensive, public transport fares are high and the city doesn’t spend much on programs for older people.
11. New York-Newark-Jersey City, New York/New Jersey
Population over 65: 14.6 percent
The details: Almost 21 million people reside in the New York City area, making this region the largest metro area in the country. The region scores well on transportation and employment, but not well on education or living arrangements.
Transportation options include a 24-hour subway system and an extensive bus network, as well as many walkable neighborhoods. New York has a relatively low crime rate for the population size.
Older residents have low obesity rates and long life expectancy. Elder care programs are well funded, and numerous nursing homes and home health-care providers are available. New York City funds a range of safety, arts, education and other programs for older adults.
The Downside: New York-Newark-Jersey City, New York/New Jersey
Affordable housing is a serious problem in New York City, and rates of unemployment and poverty in older groups are high, as is income inequality. Traffic congestion is one of the worst of large metro areas. Area hospitals have long ER wait times, and continuous-care or hospice options are few. Despite the ethnic and cultural diversity in New York City, civic engagement, such as volunteering or philanthropy, is low.
10. San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, California
Population over 65: 14.4 percent
The details: The San Francisco Bay Area scores well for general livability, wellness, transportation and education, but very low for living arrangements due to the high cost of housing.
The Bay Area has a strong economy and job growth, with a healthy small business sector. The population, in general, is well educated with high income levels.
Older residents have numerous choices for primary care. The area has many nursing homes and hospitals, as well as living and continuing-care and hospice facilities.
The Downside: San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, California
San Francisco housing prices are among the most expensive house in the country, about three times the national average, and taxes are high. The overall cost of living and income inequality are both high, and restrictions on building and zoning continue to push up rents.
The area has significant unemployment in older workers and not enough home health-care options, with expensive long-term at-home care. There are few dialysis or diagnostic centers.
9. Boston-Cambridge-Newton, Massachusetts/New Hampshire
Population over 65: 14.7 percent
The details: The Boston area scores well on health care, wellness, transportation, education and employment, but the living arrangements score is low because of the high cost of housing.
Residents partake in good public transit, and benefit from low crime rates. The area’s population enjoys good overall health, with low rates of Alzheimer’s, obesity, plenty of options for walking, numerous fitness centers and a long life expectancy.
Older people in the Boston area have good access to specialist care, such as orthopedic surgeons, home health care options and quality nursing homes. Special needs and senior transportation programs are well funded.
The Downside: Boston-Cambridge-Newton, Massachusetts/New Hampshire
Housing prices in the area are high, as are taxes. The population has high income inequality, and high rates of depression and drinking. Hospital care is expensive, and ER wait times are long.
8. Jackson, Mississippi
Population over 65: 13.2 percent
The details: Jackson rates high on health care, financial security, employment, community engagement and living arrangements metrics, but very low on transportation options.
The city has a sizeable older community: about 10 percent of the population is over 65. In addition, the city is very affordable, with low rental and house prices. Living and health care costs are also much lower than the national average, and tax rates are low.
Local people are very civic-minded, with strong neighborhood ties.
The area has plenty of nurses, nurse practitioners and orthopedic surgeons, and good access to rehab and geriatric facilities, and dialysis and diagnostic centers.
The Downside: Jackson, Mississippi
The poverty rate is about 30 percent, and the city lacks outdoor recreational spaces. Jackson has a struggling economy with low job growth (although unemployment is low in older workers). Crime rates are high. The city also has high levels of obesity and Alzheimer’s. With limited public transit options, most residents use cars to get around.
7. Omaha-Council Bluffs, Nebraska/Iowa
Population over 65: 12.6 percent
The details: The Omaha metro area rates highly on health care, employment and community engagement, but low on wellness indicators.
The region offers a lower cost of living, rental costs and house prices than the national average.
The local job market is strong, and commute times are short. Older residents experience low rates of poverty and income inequality, and Omaha provides good funding for older-adult programs. The local population also has a high rate of volunteering.
The area benefits from numerous orthopedic surgeons, geriatric facilities, rehab centers and hospice care. Local
Population over 65: 9.9 percent
The details: Austin is ranked as the best place to live in the country by U.S. News & World Report, as well as a top place to retire. The city rates highly on financial security, employment, health care, wellness and general livability.
Texas’s capital is home to the University of Texas and a strong high-tech industry. Overall, the state has low tax rates and no income tax, which has led to a thriving small-business sector. Local companies hire a high rate of older workers.
Locals are generally in good health and stay active, with low chronic disease rates and longer li
Austin’s experiencing a growth boom, with house prices are well above the national average. Traffic congestion is a severe problem.
5. Des Moines-West Des Moines, Iowa
Population over 65: 12.5 percent
The details: The Des Moines area is rated highly on community engagement, health care and employment.
Both living and housing costs are less than the national average.
The Des Moines region is a national leader in geriatric health services and offers a wide range of primary-care specialists. Medical and long-term care is reasonably priced. Programs for older adults are well funded, and the city features plenty of volunteering opportunities.
The Downside: Des Moines-West Des Moines, Iowa
Public transport is limited. Rates of obesity, drinking and Alzheimer’s are high.
4. Salt Lake City, Utah
Population over 65: 9.4 percent
The details: Salt Lake City rates high on health care, wellness, financial security, employment, education and transportation, but low on general livability.
The cost of living in the Salt Lake City area is lower than other major U.S. cities, and new development focuses on lower-priced condos and housing developments.
The city has a high rate of older volunteers, robust levels of employed workers over 65 and good access to re-skilling through local community colleges. Income inequality and poverty rates are low.
The region has good and easy access to a wide range of health services and providers for older people, and rates of Alzheimer’s, diabetes and obesity are low.
The Downside: Salt Lake City, Utah
Crime rates are high and the median house price is above the national average. Funding for elder programs is also low. Winters are cold and snowy.
3. Durham-Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Population over 65: 11.8 percent
The details: While the Durham-Chapel Hill area rates highly on health care, education and financial security, it ranks low on general livability due to a higher cost of living.
The region’s hospitals are some of the best in the country, with access to specialized units and health care providers for age-related care such as Alzheimer’s treatment and hospice services.
The region is experiencing employment growth, with a strong small business sector and low unemployment among older workers. More regional pluses include housing prices lower than the national average and relatively low property taxes.
The Downside: Durham-Chapel Hill, North Carolina
The area has high levels of crime, income inequality and Alzheimer’s cases.
2. Madison, Wisconsin
Population over 65: 13.1 percent
The details: Madison rates high on health care, community engagement and wellness factors, and has a population that’s generally educated and healthy.
Home to the University of Wisconsin, the city offers numerous educational, learning and cultural opportunities as well as many fitness and recreation options.
Residents have excellent access to geriatric, Alzheimer’s and rehab units. The area has high numbers of nurses and physicians, orthopedic surgeons, nurse practitioners and physician assistants, and excellent access to long-term hospitals. ER wait times are short.
The Downside: Madison, Wisconsin
There are too few home health care resources and long-term care for older adults is expensive. The city doesn’t have enough dialysis and diagnostic units. The rate of Alzheimer’s cases is very high. Both living costs and house prices are higher than the national average, which may contribute to Madison’s roughly 20 percent poverty rate. Madison is also known for cold winters, with temperatures falling to single digits.
1. Provo-Orem, Utah
Population over 65: 5.7 percent
The details: The Provo-Orem area rates No. 1 in the country for both general livability and wellness for older adults.
Most people in the region over 65 are cared for at home and stay fairly active, with low rates of diabetes, obesity and Alzheimer’s. Smoking and drinking are rare in this traditionally Mormon state. Social support and faith-based engagement are also strong.
The state economy is healthy, with low unemployment and high job growth, while the number of small businesses is increasing, thanks to a business-friendly tax and regulations environment, and a healthy high-tech and start-up sector. Volunteering levels are high, while crime and poverty rates are low. Two major universities, Brigham Young (Provo) and Utah Valley University (Orem) provide educational programs, as well as a diverse range of artistic, cultural and sporting events.
In 2014, people in Provo and Orem had the highest well being and optimism in the country, according to a Gallup-Healthways survey.
The Downside: Provo-Orem, Utah
Services such as hospitals and transportation are expensive, and there’s limited funding for older adult programs. The area has few orthopedic surgeons, dialysis or Alzheimer’s units.