🔍 Read the full analysis: What It Costs To Retire Around The World: I Fact-Checked The Viral $2 Million Graphic on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get hardware and tech essentials delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
TL;DR
A viral graphic listing annual retirement costs in 18 countries multiplies each figure by 25, but provides no source or explanation of who the estimates cover. That formula omits state pensions and assumes a roughly 30-year retirement, so it can overstate savings needs for some couples and understate them for people retiring early.
A viral graphic assigning retirement costs to 18 countries uses a consistent calculation, but its annual spending figures cannot be verified because it gives no source or methodology, according to a November 4 review by ThorstenMeyerAI.com. The graphic also omits state pensions and applies a savings formula designed around a roughly 30-year retirement, leaving its headline totals incomplete for many households.
The graphic lists the United States at $80,000 a year and $2 million in savings, the United Kingdom at $55,000 and $1.4 million, Thailand at $24,000 and $600,000, and Kenya at $14,000 and $350,000. The review found that each total is the annual figure multiplied by 25, with totals rounded. That is the arithmetic behind the familiar 4% rule: withdraw 4% of savings in the first year, then adjust withdrawals for inflation, with the approach commonly framed around a 30-year retirement.
The calculation does not establish that the annual budgets are accurate. The graphic does not say whether they cover one person or a couple, homeowners or renters, or whether taxes and health insurance are included. The reviewer said no source or method note could be traced, so the estimates cannot be checked as like-for-like country comparisons.
US spending data offers one point of comparison. The Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey recorded average annual spending of $64,445 in 2025 for households headed by someone aged 65 or older. Those households averaged 1.7 people, and 78% owned their homes. Households headed by someone aged 55 to 64 spent an average of $85,442. The review says the graphic’s $80,000 US estimate is plausible for some couples, but does not clarify housing costs or household size.
Pensions Change the Savings Target
The biggest effect of the missing assumptions is that the graphic treats all annual spending as if it must be funded from personal savings. In reality, some retirees receive state pension income, although eligibility, payment amounts and start dates differ by country and individual record.
Using the graphic’s US budget of $80,000 for a couple, the reviewer subtracts an estimated $40,260 in annual Social Security for an aged couple where both receive benefits. Applying the graphic’s 25-times multiplier to the remaining $39,740 produces a savings target of about $993,500, rather than $2 million. This is an illustrative calculation, not a personal estimate: it assumes the couple qualifies for the cited average benefit and does not address when either person can claim it.
The same issue matters for people planning to stop work earlier than the age assumed in standard retirement calculations. A lower savings target based on a 30-year model may not cover a retirement lasting 35 or 40 years. The graphic is therefore not a reliable universal verdict on whether people can afford to retire in a particular country.
Products Worth Considering
Apple MacBook Pro 14 2021 with M1 Max, 64GB RAM, 2TB SSD, Silver
LG 24G414B-B 24-Inch UltraGear Full HD IPS Gaming Monitor
Logitech MX Mechanical Wireless Illuminated Keyboard, Clicky
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the 25-Times Rule Works
The 4% rule is a planning shorthand, not a guarantee that a particular amount will last for every retiree. In the graphic, multiplying annual spending by 25 produces the advertised total: $80,000 becomes $2 million, while $15,000 for Indonesia becomes $375,000. The review says the method assumes a starting withdrawal of 4% of savings, followed by inflation-adjusted withdrawals.
Retirement length changes the arithmetic. Morningstar’s 2025 retirement-income research puts its highest starting withdrawal rate at 3.9% for 30 years, 3.5% for 35 years and 3.3% for 40 years, under its stated assumptions for steady, inflation-adjusted spending. Those rates imply approximately 25.6, 28.6 and 30.3 times annual withdrawals, respectively. They are research estimates, not guarantees or individual advice.
Country costs also need consistent methods. The review says its own price-level model gives Spain and Costa Rica the same price level, while the viral graphic lists Costa Rica as 42% cheaper. Without a disclosed method, differences in household size, housing, insurance, taxes or local prices may be mixed together, making direct comparisons difficult.
“The arithmetic is right. Almost everything that matters is missing: a source, a definition of who is retiring, and state pensions.”
— Thorsten Meyer, ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Missing Budgets and Personal Details
The source behind the graphic’s country-by-country annual costs remains unidentified. Its household assumptions are also unknown: readers cannot tell whether each budget describes a single person or a couple, a renter or homeowner, or spending before or after taxes and insurance. The review says the numbers cannot be called false on the available evidence, but they cannot be independently verified either.
The pension examples are not personal forecasts. Social Security benefits vary, and a cited average is not the amount every couple receives. In the UK, the full new State Pension requires a qualifying National Insurance record; people may receive less. A pension that starts at 67 also does not finance someone who retires at 55 during the years before eligibility.
Visa rules add another limit to comparisons based on living costs. The review says Mexico’s consulate in Las Vegas asks for $4,630 in monthly income per person for temporary residence, around twice the graphic’s stated cost of living there. Requirements can depend on the consulate and application, and the source review does not establish that one threshold applies to every applicant.
The review also says there is no evidence that AI is causing older workers to be laid off in large numbers. It points instead to official data showing that older workers who lose jobs find new work less often. That distinction matters: the graphic’s connection to concerns about AI and employment is a framing, not evidence that AI has already produced widespread older-worker layoffs.
Check Assumptions Before Planning
No updated or sourced version of the graphic is identified in the review. Until its creator provides a method and supporting data, its figures should be treated as unverified estimates, not dependable country rankings or individual savings targets.
For a useful personal calculation, readers would need to set a retirement age and time horizon, estimate housing, healthcare, taxes and other spending, and account for pension eligibility and expected benefits. Those inputs can change the required savings substantially. The review’s next step is not a new universal number; it is a clearer comparison that discloses those assumptions and distinguishes a country’s living costs from the amount a person must fund from savings.
Key Questions
Is the graphic’s $2 million US figure mathematically wrong?
The multiplication is consistent: $80,000 multiplied by 25 equals $2 million. But the graphic does not identify the source of the $80,000 budget or explain whose spending it represents, so the underlying estimate cannot be verified from the information provided.
Why does the review calculate a lower US savings target?
It subtracts an estimated $40,260 in annual Social Security for an aged couple where both receive benefits from the graphic’s $80,000 annual budget, then multiplies the remaining spending gap by 25. The result, about $993,500, is an illustration based on the cited average benefit, not a forecast for every couple.
Does the 4% rule work for someone retiring at 55?
Not necessarily. The rule is commonly framed around a 30-year retirement, while someone retiring at 55 may need savings for 35 or 40 years. Morningstar’s cited research uses lower starting withdrawal rates for those longer periods, but those estimates are not guarantees.
Are the country cost figures independently verified?
No supporting source or methodology is identified for the graphic’s annual budgets. The review says it can test whether some figures seem plausible, but it cannot verify them or confirm that countries are being compared on the same household and spending basis.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
