If you’re thinking about retirement or already living it, chances are you’ve dreamed about sunny days, peace of mind, and not having to constantly check your bank account before heading to the grocery store. But here’s the truth: if you’re relying only on Social Security to get by, living in a big city like New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago might just break the bank.
But don’t worry—I’ve got some good news. There are still cities across the U.S. where your Social Security dollars can go further. Stick around because I’ll walk you through the most affordable cities to retire in—and which ones to avoid. And hey, if you want to keep getting smart, useful stories like this, make sure you visit polifinus.com—where trending news meets real-life advice!
Why big cities are breaking retirees’ budgets
According to the Social Security Administration, your benefits are meant to cover only about 40% of your pre-retirement income. But in cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, or even Miami, that number drops dramatically.
In fact, Social Security covers just 24% to 30% of a retiree’s spending in many large U.S. cities. Yikes!
For example:
- In San Francisco, retirees receive about $20,726 a year from Social Security but spend nearly $70,000 annually.
- In Los Angeles, it’s the same income, but expenses average over $68,000 a year.
So unless you’ve got a comfy $1.6 million saved up (yes, that’s what you’d need in LA or SF), retiring in these big-name cities isn’t the dream it used to be.
How LendingTree broke it all down
This new study by LendingTree dug into the numbers—using data from the Labor Department, U.S. Census, and SSA — to see where Social Security actually stretches far enough to support you.
Here’s the quick takeaway: smaller cities = smarter living if you’re depending mostly on SSA checks.
So let’s jump into the best (and worst) places to retire on Social Security alone.
Most affordable cities to retire with only Social Security
These are cities where your SSA checks will cover over 30% of your living costs — not perfect, but much better than New York or L.A.
1. McAllen, Texas
- Social Security covers: 35% of average spending
- Bonus: Warm weather, affordable housing, and strong community vibes
2. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
- SSA Income: $21,978
- Retirement Spending: $55,882
- SSA covers: 32.2%
It’s got a low cost of living, solid healthcare options, and tons of charm. You get big city amenities without the big city prices.
3. Rochester, New York
- SSA Income: $22,581
- Spending: $57,835
- SSA covers: 32%
An underrated gem in upstate New York — close to nature, artsy neighborhoods, and lower costs all around.
4. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
- SSA Income: $20,860
- Spending: $53,869
- SSA covers: 31.7%
It’s flat, it’s friendly, and your dollar stretches like elastic here.
5. Milwaukee, Wisconsin
- SSA Income: $21,784
- Spending: $56,533
- SSA covers: 31.6%
Chill Midwestern vibes, low housing costs, and summer festivals galore.
Big cities where Social Security stretches the least
Now, let’s flip the coin. These are the cities where SSA barely covers a quarter of your yearly expenses. Unless you’re swimming in retirement savings, they might not be your best bet.
Read this much later:
San Francisco, California
- SSA Income: $20,726
- Spending: $69,971
- SSA covers: 24.3%
Yup. Gorgeous views, tech giants, and…a very painful retirement budget.
Los Angeles, California
- SSA Income: $20,726
- Spending: $68,372
- SSA covers: 24.9%
Hollywood dreams come with Hollywood prices. Unless you’re starring in your own movie, you might want to pass.
Washington, D.C.
- SSA covers: 24.9%
Between taxes, housing, and healthcare, retiring in the nation’s capital is for those with deep pockets.
Miami, Florida
- SSA covers: 26.9%
It may be sunny and beachy, but it’s no longer cheap. Property prices and daily costs are creeping up fast.
Other major cities that could still work — with a bit of help
These big cities don’t top the list, but they’re not the worst either. If you’ve got some savings or side income, they might work:
- Chicago: SSA covers 29.6%
- Philadelphia: SSA covers 29.4%
- Houston: SSA covers 29.6%
- Phoenix: SSA covers 28.9%
- Boston: SSA covers 27.8%
You can still live there, but you’ll need to be smart with budgeting or have some backup income.
What this means for you
If you’re planning your golden years or already living them, it’s time to be strategic. Here are a few things to think about:
- Relocating isn’t giving up — it’s gaining control.
Smaller cities might not have the same buzz, but they often offer better healthcare, lower rent, and stronger community connections. - Plan ahead.
Even if you’re years from retiring, these trends show that saving matters more than ever. - Don’t feel guilty about downsizing.
A simpler life in a more affordable city could mean less stress, more joy, and way fewer bills.
Quick Recap: Best Cities for SSA-Only Retirees
| City | SSA Covers (%) |
| McAllen, TX | 35% |
| Pittsburgh, PA | 32.2% |
| Rochester, NY | 32% |
| Oklahoma City, OK | 31.7% |
| Milwaukee, WI | 31.6% |
| Indianapolis, IN | 31.5% |
| Las Vegas, NV | 31.4% |
| Detroit, MI | 31.3% |
You deserve a comfortable retirement
Retirement should be about relaxation, freedom, and peace of mind — not stress over bills.
So if you’re trying to stretch those Social Security checks, know your options. Moving to a smaller city doesn’t mean giving up your lifestyle — it might just mean finally being able to enjoy it.
Until next time, stay smart, stay curious, and take care of your future self — they’ll thank you later.
