🔍 Read the full analysis: What It Costs To Retire Around The World: I Fact-Checked The Viral $2 Million Graphic on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on office and shipping supplies
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
A viral graphic assigns annual retirement costs to 18 countries and multiplies each by 25, but its cost estimates have no cited source or clear definition. The calculation leaves out state pensions and may understate savings needs for people retiring at 50 or 55, whose money may need to last longer than 30 years.
A viral graphic that says a U.S. retiree needs $2 million and assigns lower retirement budgets to countries including Thailand and Kenya uses a consistent calculation, but its underlying cost estimates cannot be verified, according to a November 4 fact-check by Thorsten Meyer. The graphic gives no source or definition of whether its budgets cover a single person or a couple, and it omits state pensions—gaps that can substantially change the savings figures.
The graphic lists annual retirement costs for 18 countries, then multiplies each figure by 25. That arithmetic is consistent with the so-called 4% rule: withdraw 4% of savings in the first year, adjust withdrawals for inflation afterward, and plan for the money to last roughly 30 years. Meyer reported finding no study, methodology note or traceable author for the annual cost estimates. He said that means the numbers cannot be verified, though he could not establish from the missing sourcing alone that they are false.
The U.S. figure is $80,000 a year, or $2 million under the graphic’s formula. As a comparison point, 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 figures offer context, but do not resolve whether the graphic assumes rent, home ownership, one person or two.
The fact-check says pensions change the savings calculation for some households. The Social Security Administration’s 2027 fact sheet estimated an average benefit of $3,355 a month for an aged couple in which both people receive benefits, after a 3.6% cost-of-living adjustment. If that couple spends $80,000 annually, the stated benefits would leave $39,740 a year to be funded from savings. Multiplying that gap by 25 gives about $993,500, not $2 million. The calculation is illustrative, not a personal estimate: actual benefits and spending vary, and eligibility and retirement timing matter.
Pensions Change the Savings Target
The graphic’s headline-sized totals could influence decisions about when and where people retire, but they combine an unverified spending estimate with a formula that treats the entire budget as a draw on savings. That can overstate the amount a household needs to withdraw when it receives a state pension. Meyer’s U.S. example shows how sharply the arithmetic shifts once an assumed benefit is deducted, although it does not establish what any particular person should save.
The opposite risk applies to early retirement. The 25-times calculation is based on a roughly 30-year horizon. Someone who stops working at 50 or 55 may need savings to last 35 or 40 years. The fact-check cites Morningstar’s 2025 retirement-income research, which gives lower starting withdrawal rates for those longer periods. A smaller spending estimate in a lower-cost country does not, by itself, address pension eligibility, health coverage, taxes, visas or how long the savings must last.
Products Worth Considering
Apple iMac 24-inch All-in-One Desktop Computer with M6 Chip, Blue
Logitech MX Mechanical Wireless Illuminated Keyboard, Clicky
FLEXISPOT 40-Inch Height-Adjustable Standing Desk Converter with Keyboard Tray, Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the 25-Times Rule Works
The graphic applies the same multiplier across countries. Its listed examples include the United Kingdom at $55,000 a year and $1.4 million in savings, Spain at $38,000 and $950,000, Portugal at $32,000 and $800,000, Mexico at $28,000 and $700,000, Costa Rica at $22,000 and $550,000, and Thailand at $24,000 and $600,000. The values are rounded, which accounts for small differences between exact multiplication and the displayed totals.
Meyer also compared the graphic’s figures with outside measures and flagged differences that its methodology does not explain. In his price-level model, Costa Rica and Spain had the same price level, while the graphic placed Costa Rica 42% cheaper. He also cited a Mexican consulate in Las Vegas that requires proof of $4,630 in monthly income per person for temporary residence—about twice the graphic’s $28,000 annual Mexico budget. A visa income threshold is not the same as a measure of actual living costs, but the gap shows why a cost estimate alone may not establish whether a move is feasible.
For the UK, the fact-check used the government’s stated full new State Pension rate of £241.30 a week. People whose National Insurance record began after April 2016 need 35 qualifying years to receive the full rate. Two full pensions total £25,095.20 a year. Using the European Central Bank’s November 2, 2026 reference rates, Meyer converted that to about $33,676. Against the graphic’s $55,000 annual figure, that leaves an assumed gap of about $21,300, or roughly $533,000 at 25 times. The calculation assumes two people qualify for the full pension; it is not a prediction for all UK retirees.
“The arithmetic is right. Almost everything that matters is missing: a source, a definition of who is retiring, and state pensions.”
— Thorsten Meyer, in his November 4 fact-check
Unverified Costs and Personal Eligibility
The graphic does not say where its annual cost figures came from or whether they cover one person or a couple. It also does not specify housing status, health insurance, taxes or other major spending categories. Without those definitions, the country rankings cannot be independently checked on a like-for-like basis. Meyer’s price comparison and visa example raise questions about the inputs but do not supply a verified replacement budget for every country.
The pension calculations also rely on assumptions. U.S. Social Security benefits depend on individual records and claiming circumstances; the UK full rate requires sufficient qualifying years. A pension that begins at a later age does not cover a person who leaves work at 55 during the years before payments begin. The source material does not establish whether the graphic includes taxes, investment fees, healthcare costs or country-specific pension rules.
The article’s introduction mentions an AI-and-jobs concern but does not provide evidence that AI is causing mass layoffs among older workers. It says official data shows older workers who lose jobs find new work less often, but supplies no dataset or figures for that assertion. The retirement graphic itself does not establish a link between AI-related job losses and the budgets it lists.
Check the Assumptions Before Planning
The next step for readers is to treat the graphic as an unsourced estimate, not a personalized retirement plan. A meaningful comparison would need to specify household size, housing, healthcare, taxes, pension income, visa requirements and the number of years savings must support. Those inputs are not provided in the graphic described by Meyer.
Any updated assessment would also need to account for current pension rules and exchange rates, and distinguish average benefits from what a particular retiree qualifies to receive. The fact-check does not offer a verified replacement set of budgets for all 18 countries. Until the original publisher supplies a method and sources, the country totals—and the assumptions behind them—remain unconfirmed.
Key Questions
How does the graphic calculate its total retirement budgets?
It multiplies each listed annual cost by 25, a calculation associated with a 4% initial withdrawal rate and an approximately 30-year retirement. The multiplication is consistent, but the graphic does not cite sources for the annual costs.
Does the fact-check prove the country cost estimates are false?
No. Meyer said he could not verify the estimates because the graphic has no source or methodology. He described testing whether the figures were plausible, not proving that every figure was false.
In Meyer’s example, an assumed couple receives $40,260 a year in Social Security benefits, reducing an $80,000 annual budget’s gap to $39,740. Multiplying that gap by 25 gives about $993,500. The result depends on the assumed spending and benefits and is not a personal savings target.
Why might the 25-times rule be inadequate for someone retiring early?
The rule corresponds to roughly 30 years of withdrawals. A person retiring at 50 or 55 may need savings for 35 or 40 years. The fact-check cites Morningstar’s 2025 research, which gives lower starting withdrawal rates for those longer periods.
Does the graphic account for visas and pension eligibility?
It does not state that it includes either. The fact-check says the graphic omits state pensions and notes that visa financial requirements can differ from a country’s estimated living costs. Eligibility and visa rules need to be checked separately.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
