Has Anyone Noticed that Kiplinger is Dumb?

[oldtoyota]

This article claims to list places for early retirees to move to, but the first place mentioned (Honolulu) has a COL defined as "49% above the national average" although medical costs are said to be lower.

???????????????

Also, they describe the unemployment rate for some cities in such a way that it sounds as though it's being factored into the equation. If you are retired, then employment is not as big an issue...

http://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/retirement/T006-S001-best-cities-for-early-retirement/index.html

[footenote]

Agree. I have not found one "Best Places to Retire" articles (usually in click-generating "slide shows") that was worth my time.

[beltim]

The first page clearly lists their criteria:

With this in mind, we asked data aggregator FindTheBest to help us identify economically healthy cities where early retirees should be able to work (if they choose) and prosper during their second acts. We took into account unemployment rates, household incomes and living costs, especially for housing and health care. We also screened the states for tax-friendliness based on our Retiree Tax Map. While you might not qualify for all of these tax breaks immediately, they’ll come in handy as you age in place. Finally, we sought out cities with low crime and high concentrations of residents ages 45 to 64, so you can safely enjoy your early retirement with peers.
Read more at http://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/retirement/T006-S001-best-cities-for-early-retirement/index.html#FjGu1JPFSJZR1r65.99

Just because they use different criteria than you do doesn't mean they're dumb.

[oldtoyota]

The first page clearly lists their criteria:

With this in mind, we asked data aggregator FindTheBest to help us identify economically healthy cities where early retirees should be able to work (if they choose) and prosper during their second acts. We took into account unemployment rates, household incomes and living costs, especially for housing and health care. We also screened the states for tax-friendliness based on our Retiree Tax Map. While you might not qualify for all of these tax breaks immediately, they’ll come in handy as you age in place. Finally, we sought out cities with low crime and high concentrations of residents ages 45 to 64, so you can safely enjoy your early retirement with peers.
Read more at http://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/retirement/T006-S001-best-cities-for-early-retirement/index.html#FjGu1JPFSJZR1r65.99

Just because they use different criteria than you do doesn't mean they're dumb.

Except that they themselves rate Honolulu as low, so why include it? To get clicks on their website and sell to advertisers, I suppose.

[beltim]

Well, they rate it 10th, so I'm not sure how that's "low" among all possible cities.

[Eric]

Why is the percentage of population between ages 45 - 64 even a factor?  I don't even understand why that would matter.  First, most that age will have work and families.  Second, who chooses friends based on age over interests?

[Nords]

This article claims to list places for early retirees to move to, but the first place mentioned (Honolulu) has a COL defined as "49% above the national average" although medical costs are said to be lower.
???????????????
Also, they describe the unemployment rate for some cities in such a way that it sounds as though it's being factored into the equation. If you are retired, then employment is not as big an issue...
http://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/retirement/T006-S001-best-cities-for-early-retirement/index.html

Well, imagine that.  A Mainland magazine prints an article about Hawaii.  In November.  I wonder how the Hawaii Visitors & Conventions Bureau bribes feels about this blatant manipulation of the public's weather sensitivities.

To be fair, Hawaii used to be in the retiree top ten lists a lot.  Back in the early 2000s a finance magazine ("Wealth"?  "Worth"?) used to rank major metropolitan areas for workers & retirees, and Hawaii is one of the nation's most tax-friendly states for retirees.

The cost-of-living data is skewed.  For example, we spend less money on gas in Hawaii than anywhere we've lived on the Mainland-- it costs $4/gallon but we drive a lot less on a 30x40-mile island.  We pay 35 cents/hour for electricity but many locations on the islands do not require A/C or heating systems.  (We also have the nation's highest per capita rates of solar water heating and photovoltaic systems.)  We pay exorbitant prices for Mainland food like potatoes and blueberries, but frugal shoppers eat local veggies & fruits.  We rarely have to dress like Mainland workers & retirees, so polo shirts and Dockers tend to be more expensive than surfing t-shirts & shorts. 

Yet when the ranking algorithms drive by the state's databases they see $4 gas and 35 cents/hour electricity and expensive (Mainland) groceries and pricey (Mainland) clothes. 

Yes, Hawaii real estate is expensive.  Big homes and large lots here can cost from $600K-$2M.  Yet how many retirees want to take care of a big home and a large lot?  By the way, Hawaii property taxes are among the nation's lowest.

Hawaii is ranked among the highest in the nation for outdoor lifestyle, healthy living, and longevity-- all of which are probably pretty high on a retiree's list.  I'm doing my best to boost those averages.

If those algorithms used databases for longboards and surf wax then Hawaii would have a much lower cost of living...

[oldtoyota]

Why is the percentage of population between ages 45 - 64 even a factor?  I don't even understand why that would matter.  First, most that age will have work and families.  Second, who chooses friends based on age over interests?

Thank you! That is part of my point.

[oldtoyota]

Well, they rate it 10th, so I'm not sure how that's "low" among all possible cities.

You are jesting, right?

[oldtoyota]

This article claims to list places for early retirees to move to, but the first place mentioned (Honolulu) has a COL defined as "49% above the national average" although medical costs are said to be lower.
???????????????
Also, they describe the unemployment rate for some cities in such a way that it sounds as though it's being factored into the equation. If you are retired, then employment is not as big an issue...
http://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/retirement/T006-S001-best-cities-for-early-retirement/index.html

Well, imagine that.  A Mainland magazine prints an article about Hawaii.  In November.  I wonder how the Hawaii Visitors & Conventions Bureau bribes feels about this blatant manipulation of the public's weather sensitivities.

Ha. Funny.

You do raise good points about how it *can* be inexpensive. I agree that can be the case. I live in a high COLA but a lot of entertainment is free here, and no one is forcing me to eat out. I've lived in a cheap COLA, which meant I made a lot less and then still had to pay national prices for gas and plane tix to see family. Sometimes, there's more to the equation than just the COLA.

That all aside, my beef with KipKip is that they themselves are saying it's expensive and yet it's there as #10. Is it cheaper than Budapest? I don't know, but I suspect there's something to your bribery/kickback suggestion.

[beltim]

Well, they rate it 10th, so I'm not sure how that's "low" among all possible cities.

You are jesting, right?

I am not jesting.  It's possible I'm missing something, but the list is "10 Best Cities for Early Retirement," they clearly list their criteria, and they rank Honolulu 10th.  In other words, they rate it the 10th best city for early retirement.  What's the problem?