🔍 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 tech for your team
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
A graphic listing retirement costs for 18 countries multiplies annual spending by 25, consistent with the 4% rule, but provides no traceable source or definitions for its estimates. The rule may overstate savings needs for some retirees after pensions are counted, yet it may be too optimistic for people retiring at 50 or 55, who could need income for 35 to 40 years.
A viral graphic claiming Americans need $2 million to retire and listing annual costs for 18 countries uses a consistent calculation, but its spending figures have no traceable source and do not say whether they cover one person or a couple, according to a November 4 fact-check by Thorsten Meyer. The analysis also finds that the graphic omits state pensions and applies a 30-year savings rule that may not fit people retiring early.
The graphic, signed “The Business Guy,” assigns the United States an annual retirement cost of $80,000 and a total of $2 million. It lists the United Kingdom at $55,000 a year and $1.4 million, Thailand at $24,000 and $600,000, and Kenya at $14,000 and $350,000. Meyer found that the totals are the annual figures multiplied by 25, with rounding. That matches the familiar 4% rule: withdraw 4% of savings in the first year, adjust withdrawals for inflation later, and plan around a retirement lasting about 30 years.
But Meyer said he could not find a study, method note or identifiable data source for the annual costs. The graphic also does not define whether its estimates assume a single person or a couple, a renter or homeowner, or include taxes and insurance. Meyer’s fact-check compares the U.S. figure with the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 2025 Consumer Expenditure Survey: households headed by someone 65 or older spent an average of $64,445, and had 1.7 people on average; 78% owned their homes. Households headed by someone aged 55 to 64 spent $85,442. Those figures provide a point of comparison, not a like-for-like validation of the graphic.
The analysis says state pensions substantially change the savings calculation for some households. The Social Security Administration projected an average benefit of $3,355 a month for an aged couple where both receive benefits, starting in January 2027. Against the graphic’s assumed $80,000 in annual spending, that leaves $39,740 a year to fund from savings; multiplying that gap by 25 gives about $993,500. Meyer also calculates that two full UK new State Pensions would total £25,095.20 a year, or about $33,676 at the European Central Bank’s November 2 reference rates. Compared with $55,000 in annual spending, the remaining gap would be about $21,300, or roughly $533,000 at 25 times the gap.
How Pensions Change the Savings Target
The graphic’s totals may look like individual savings targets, but they are not reliable personal forecasts without a spending definition and a calculation of other income. State pensions can reduce how much a household needs to draw from investments, while eligibility and payment amounts depend on a person’s record and circumstances. The examples in the fact-check use an average U.S. benefit and full UK pension rates; they do not establish what a particular reader will receive.
Retirement age changes the calculation in the other direction. Morningstar’s 2025 retirement-income research, as cited by Meyer, puts its highest starting withdrawal rate at 3.9% for 30 years, 3.5% for 35 years and 3.3% for 40 years, assuming steady inflation-adjusted spending. Those rates correspond to about 25.6, 28.6 and 30.3 times annual spending. A 25-times target can therefore be too low for someone who stops working at 50 or 55 and needs savings to last longer than 30 years.
The country comparisons also cannot be read as simple rankings of where retirement is affordable. Meyer says his price-level model puts Costa Rica and Spain at the same price level, while the graphic’s annual figures make Costa Rica 42% cheaper. The source material does not provide enough information to independently test the graphic’s country-by-country method. Visa income thresholds, health coverage, taxes and housing can also affect whether a stated budget is practical.
Products Worth Considering
Apple Watch SE 3 GPS Smartwatch, 40mm
LG UltraGear 27GX704A-B 27-inch QHD OLED Gaming Monitor
Bose TV Speaker (2nd Gen) Compact Soundbar
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The 4% Rule Behind the Graphic
The graphic’s 25-times multiplier comes from a rule of thumb used to estimate a retirement portfolio: a first-year withdrawal of 4% of savings, followed by inflation-adjusted withdrawals. It is not a guarantee that a portfolio will last for every person or market scenario. The rule’s assumed retirement period matters, and a longer retirement generally calls for a more cautious starting withdrawal rate.
The source article also points to an administrative barrier that a living-cost estimate alone cannot capture. The Mexican consulate in Las Vegas lists a temporary-residence income requirement of $4,630 a month per person, according to Meyer—about twice the graphic’s stated $28,000 annual cost for Mexico. That requirement concerns eligibility for a visa, not the cost of living, and requirements may differ by application route or change over time.
The fact-check connects the question to concerns among people over 50 about AI and jobs, but it does not report evidence that AI is causing older workers to be laid off in large numbers. It says official data show that older workers who lose a job find another one less often. The source does not identify the specific dataset or provide figures for that statement, so it should not be treated as a quantified finding about AI’s effect on older workers.
“The arithmetic is right. Almost everything that matters is missing: a source, a definition of who is retiring, and state pensions.”
— Thorsten Meyer, in the November 4 fact-check
Which Costs the Graphic Counts
The annual estimates remain unverified: the report identifies no source or method behind them, and the graphic does not say whether costs include rent, health insurance, taxes or other major expenses. The BLS survey offers a U.S. comparison, but the available information does not establish that its household measure matches the graphic’s assumptions.
The pension examples are also not personal projections. The U.S. amount is an average, while the UK calculation assumes two people qualify for the full new State Pension. Meyer notes that a pension beginning at age 67 will not fund the years before then for someone who retires at 55. Individual eligibility, timing, currency movements and costs may change the results.
The material provided does not include the rest of Meyer’s discussion of Morningstar’s findings or a full country-by-country verification. It also does not establish whether the visa threshold cited for Mexico is representative of every applicant or application route. The claim about older workers finding new jobs less often is not accompanied by a named dataset or underlying figures in the source material.
Build a Personal Retirement Estimate
The next step for readers is to treat the graphic as an unverified rule-of-thumb comparison, not as a financial plan. A useful estimate would specify household size, housing status, location, health coverage and taxes; subtract expected pension income only from the age it begins; and account for how long savings may need to last. People considering retirement abroad would also need to check current residency and income requirements with the relevant authorities.
No additional response from the graphic’s creator or independent validation of its country figures is included in the source material. Until a source and method are published, those annual country estimates cannot be confirmed. The key distinction remains: pension income can lower a savings target, while an early retirement can raise the amount needed relative to the 25-times calculation.
Key Questions
Is the $2 million U.S. retirement figure verified?
No. The graphic’s $2 million total is $80,000 multiplied by 25, but the source for the $80,000 annual estimate is not identified. The calculation can be checked; the spending assumption cannot be independently verified from the information provided.
Why does the fact-check calculate a lower U.S. savings target?
It subtracts the Social Security Administration’s projected average benefit of $3,355 a month for an aged couple where both receive benefits from the graphic’s assumed $80,000 annual spending. Applying the 25-times multiplier to the remaining $39,740 gives about $993,500. This is an illustration based on an average benefit, not a personal estimate.
Does the 25-times rule work for early retirement?
Not necessarily. The cited Morningstar research gives lower starting withdrawal rates for longer retirement periods: 3.5% for 35 years and 3.3% for 40 years, compared with 3.9% for 30 years. That implies a higher savings multiple than 25 for those longer periods.
Do the country figures show what it costs to retire abroad?
They do not establish a dependable cost for every retiree. The graphic does not define household size or include details such as housing, taxes, insurance or visa eligibility, and its annual estimates have no traceable source in the fact-check.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
