What are the downsides that prevent more people from working in high-income countries, and then retiring in low-income (and cost of living) ones?
"There are two parts to the hack you describe.  One is moving to a high-cost, high-pay country to work, and the other is moving to a low-cost, low-pay country to retire. As Dilip mentioned in a comment, the first part is not so easy in many cases.  You can't just take a plane to the USA and start making big bucks immediately.  In the first place, it's illegal to work without special visa permissions.  Even if you manage to secure that permission (or take the risk of trying to work illegally), there's no guarantee you'll get a job, let alone a high-paying one.  The same is true in most other high-paying countries. As for the second part, that takes considerable willpower as well.  After spending X years getting used to a country, investing time and money, you must then have the resolve to uproot your life a second time and move to another country.  For the most part, countries are expensive for a reason.  Even if you in principle reject the cost-benefit tradeoffs of a particular country, it can be difficult to give up some of those benefits when the time comes (e.g., trains running on time, reliable electricity, donut shops, or whatever).  You might ""get soft"" or become co-opted by the rich-country rat race and find it difficult to extricate yourself. All of these problems are compounded if, as in many cases, you happened to start a family while in the expensive country.  At the least, moving would require uprooting not just you but your family.  Also, quality of education is often one of the main reasons people immigrate permanently to expensive countries.  Even a person who personally would prefer to retire to a cheaper country may be unwilling to transplant their children into that country's education system.  (Of course, they could wait until the children are self-supporting, but that makes the wait longer, and may result in them living far away from their children, which they may not want.) As JoeTaxpayer notes, the same reasons may work on smaller levels, even within a country.  In theory it's perfectly possible to power through a brief, lucrative career in Silicon Valley and then retire to Idaho, but it doesn't seem to happen as often as the plain numbers might suggest.  A simple way to put it might be that the kind of person who would be happy living in a cheap environment often cannot or will not endure a lengthy ""tour of duty"" in an expensive environment.  Either you like the expensive environment and stay, or you leave, not as a planned lifehack, but because you realize you don't like it." I was at a restaurant in NYC, 1st Avenue and 63rd street. I don't recall how the conversation started, but the woman at the next table remarked how none of her friends from the West side, 9th avenue or thereabout, would visit her. Less than 2 miles away, yet in their minds, too far. Your question isn't likely to be answered with facts, but opinion. In this case an anecdote. Human nature is such that a good number of people have a small geographic circle of comfort. Of course some do exactly as you suggest. But not the majority. At retirement age, your life priorities are somewhat different, and two key items come to mind.  Your social circle, community and extended family contacts are highly related with your lifespan at retirement age. Loneliness kills, literally. Long distance relocation would weaken those ties exactly at the time when you most need and want them. You are also likely to need at least occasional physical assistance at random times, so living in a spot where none your friends&family can visit at a day's notice is hard. Cheaper living locations tend to have worse healthcare. Again, this doesn't matter much for a 25 year old expat, but at an age where you likely have one or multiple chronic diseases, general frailty and a very frequent need for healthcare this is a priority. This might work if you can do it as a family. I met a retired British couple in southern India, and they had a nice system where they were living in UK during the (UK) summer, and in India for the rest of the year. However, the above concerns don't disappear - when at a later time their health deterioates and one of them dies, then it would probably be better for the widow[er] to stay in UK permanently closer to their extended family and with the local healthcare system. I'm currently working as an expat, and my grandparents used to work overseas but retired to Canada so you could say my family has done things completely the opposite of what you suggest. However there are a number of very good reasons that my grandparents have done things the way we have, and I think it's worth sharing the rationale there. Low-cost moving to high-cost is a no-brainer: it's not easy to do, but many people are trying nonetheless. However, even they will be likely to stay in the high-cost countries, mostly because of health care, also safety is a factor, but social factors also matter. Firstly, I think two key factors that have been overlooked are language and health care-- most low-cost countries speak different languages than high-cost countries.  This isn't a problem if you're young, but it becomes prohibitive if you are older. Even if you can manage, it's inconvenient in most countries. You can't just walk down the street and do whatever you like. You either have to keep a translator handy, or restrict your activities to places where you can communicate in your native language. Your favorite sports channels (rugby, american football etc.) might not be available, because nobody there cares. Your favorite news channel, or food (even in grocery stores) might not be so readily available. All these reasons made living abroad undesirable for my grandparents, but the big deal for them was healthcare.  Outside of the US, every single developed economy has socialized healthcare to a large extent. When you're young it doesn't really matter, but when you are older, it's a constant concern! There are two aspects to healthcare-- firstly, if you are a citizen in a developed country there are significant financial benefits (In the US there is also medicare/medicaid but I don't know how those work so I'm not going to talk about that) to staying in-country when you retire, even if the health care would be more expensive- it's the government that's paying! Secondly, health care in low-cost countries tends to either be cheap and poor quality (and by poor quality I mean really, really scary!) or expensive and almost as good as a developed country. Again, high-quality hospitals in low-cost countries may still save you money, but the nurses may not speak good English and the doctors may not have a great bed-side manner. In many low-cost countries, nobody calls the police because they know the cops don't care, or will never solve the problem (i.e. they will arrive hours or days after it's too late), or the cops may even be 'in on it'. So basically you try to protect yourself from the inevitable robbery,swindle,extortion,hold-up,you-name-it but sooner or later something bad will happen. With security guards and being younger, it's less of an issue, but when you're elderly, especially if you look foreign and rich, it's definitely more dangerous. Many of my friends from low-income countries try to emigrate for this reason (and/or in combination with the political climate, which is largely corrupt and full of problems). So, if you're old, why risk it? Stay somewhere safe. "One thing not mentioned is that in so called third world countries, a lot of ""stuff"" isn't actually less expensive.  Food is almost always less expensive, housing is often less expensive, but cars, fuel, computers, smartphones, electronics, brand name clothing, shoes, cosmetics, tools, art supplies, internet service, bicycles, sporting goods and many other consumer items are typically more expensive." "I should think the primary reason is due why those countries have a higher standard of salary - its not what you get, but what it buys you. In a high-salary, low-exchange-rate country like Sweden, you get a lot of services that your taxes buy you. Healthcare and quality of life in a stable country is something you want when you get old (note that your viewpoint might be very different when you're a kid). Moving to a country that has less impact on your finances is often because that country has significantly fewer services to offer. So a Swedish citizen might think about moving to a 3rd world country and find that their retirement income isn't sufficient to pay for the kind of lifestyle they actually want, such countries tend to be pleasant to live in only if you are exceptionally wealthy.  Now this kind of thing does happen, but only ""within reason"", there are a number of old people who retire to the coast (in the UK at least) and many people who used to work in London who retire to the south west. For them, the idea of moving doesn't seem so bad as they are moving to areas where many other people in their situation have also moved. See Florida for an example for US citizens too." "Political instability and general inability of the government to control crime, economomy, or even remain in existence, would be my greatest worry.  I wouldn't want my bank account to randomly disappear, criminals to come take my stuff and/or life by force because nobody is going to stop them, or a hoarde of revolutionaries appearing at my door telling me ""get lost, the times they are a-changin"". On a whim, I tried to compare instability to cost of living.  I used lowest monthly disposable income as my correlation to cost of living and the Fragile State index to measure instability.  I picked the 55 lowest to get the countries with $500.00 (usd) and lower in monthly income.   Those countries average out to 83.42 on the Fragile State index, which would be in the ""Very High Warning"" range and includes 18 countries in the ""Alert"", ""High Alert"", or ""Very High Alert"" status. Obviously, there is some subjectivity in an attempt to measure something in as broad a term as ""fragile state"", but it illustrates it's point well enough.  Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Fragile_States_Index http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Cost-of-living/Average-monthly-disposable-salary/After-tax" I know folks who considered retiring to another country. Their conclusion was that while base cost of living was lower, the cost of the things that they enjoy doing -- not to mention the cost of spending time with friends they didn't want to give up -- would be sufficiently higher to erase most of the advantages. Those of us who grew up in or close to cities feel much the same way about moving out to less-populated and less-expensive parts of our own country.  Basically, when cost of living is high it tends to be because there are more people who want to live there and are competing for resources (and driving prices up). Low cost of living is generally tied to less-desired locations, for the same reasons. IF you can find a location that appeals to you, and if you can get the resources there which your preferred lifestyle requires, this may make sense. For a while there were a number of professional writers moving from the US to Ireland, in part because the Irish tax structure heavily favored writers and other creative artists. (Katherine Kurtz spent several years living in a renovated Irish castle.) I'm not sure how many have stayed there after the novelty wore off. A lot of good answers, but there’s one more factor: ignorance.  The majority haven’t considered it, or considered it and assumed it’s not an option without investigating.  PLUS, the widespread myth that every other country is primitive, unhealthy, and dangerous.
"I take it you have nearly zero expenses, since you don't mention any savings and with your income you wouldn't have much left over for investing. At your level of income, any actual investing is either going to unwisely reduce your cash available should you need it (such as investment in mutual funds, which often have minimum investment periods of 2-6 months or more to avoid fees), or cost you a high percentage of your income in commissions (stock trading). So, I wouldn't recommend investing at all — yet. I find Dave Ramsey's baby steps to be very good general money management advice.  Here is how I would adapt the first three steps to your income and stage in life. Beyond this, Dave recommends saving for retirement, college (for kids) and paying off your house early.  These things are a little beyond your stage in life, but it would be good to start thinking about them. For you, I recommend following DJClayworth's advice to ""invest in yourself"".  Specifically, plan to get through college debt-free.  Put away money so that you have a head start once you do have living expenses — save for a car, save money for rent, etc. so that you don't have to live month to month as most people do starting out. So, what this boils down to: Put away every cent you have, in a savings account." "Remember that risk should correlate with returns, in an investment. This means that the more risk you take on, the more return you should be receiving, in an efficient marketplace. That's why putting your money in a savings account might earn you <1% interest right now, but putting money in the stock market averages ~7% returns over time. You should be very careful not to use the word 'interest' when you mean 'returns'. In your post, you are calling capital gains (the increase in value of owned property) 'interest'. This may be understating in your head the level of risk associated with property ownership. In the case of the bank, they are not in the business of home construction. Rather than take that risk themselves, they would rather finance many projects being done by construction companies that know the business. The bank has a high degree of certainty of getting its money back, because its mortgages are protected by the value of the property.  Part of the benefit of an efficient marketplace is that risk gets 'bought' by individuals who want it. This means that people with a low-risk tolerance (such as banks, people on fixed incomes, seniors, etc.) can avoid risk, and people with a high risk tolerance (stock investors, young people with high income, etc.) can take on that risk for higher average returns. The bank's reasoning should remind you of the risk associated with property ownership: increases in value are not a sure thing. If you do not understand the risk of your investment, you cannot be certain that you are being well compensated for that risk. Note also that most countries place regulations on their banks that limit the amount of their funds that can be placed in 'higher risk' asset classes. Typically, this something along the lines of ""If someone places a deposit with your bank, you can only invest that deposit in a low-risk debt-based asset [ie: you can take money deposited by customer A and use it to finance a mortgage for customer B]"". This is done in an attempt to prevent collapse of the financial sector, if risky investments start failing." In addition to what others have said, I think it is important to consider that government retirement assistance (whatever it is called in each instance) is basically a promise that can be revoked. I talked to a retired friend of mine just yesterday and we got onto that subject; she mentioned that when she was young, the promise was for 90% of one's pay, paid by the government after retiring. It is very different today. Yes, you can gamble that you won't need the saved money, and thus decide not to save anything. What then if you do end up needing the money you did not set aside, but rather spent? You are just now graduating college, and assuming of course that you get a decently-paying job, are likely going to have loads more money than you are used to. If you make an agreement with yourself to set aside even just 10-15% of the difference in income right from the start, that is going to grow into a pretty sizable nest egg by the time you approach retirement age. Then, you will have the option of continuing to work (maybe part-time) or quitting in a way you would not have had otherwise. Now I'm going to pull numbers out of thin air, but suppose that you currently have $1000/month net, before expenses, and can get a job that pays $1800/month net starting out. 10-15% of the difference means you'll be saving around $100/month for retirement. In 35 years, assuming no return on investment (pessimistic, but works if returns match inflation) and no pay rises, that will still be over $40K. That's somewhere on the order of $150/month added to your retirement income for 25 years. Multiply with whatever inflation rate you think is likely if you prefer nominal values. It becomes even more noticable if you save a significant fraction of the additional pay; if you save 1/3 of the additional money (note that you still effectively get a 50% raise compared to what you have been living on before), that gives you a net income of $1500/month instead of $1800 ($500/month more rather than $800/month more) which grows into about $110K in 35 years assuming no return on investment. Nearly $400 per month for 25 years. $100 per week is hardly chump change in retirement, and it is still quite realistic for most people to save 30% of the money they did not have before. "There are broadly two kinds of pension: final salary / defined benefit, and money purchase.  The text you quote above, where it talks about ""pension"" it is referring to a final salary / defined benefit scheme. In this type of scheme you earn a salary of £X during your working life, and you are then entitled to a proportion of £X (the proportion depends on how long you worked there) as a pension. These types of scheme are relatively rare now (outside the public sector) because the employer is liable for making enough investments into a pot to have enough money to pay everyone's pension entitlements, and when the investments do poorly the liability for the shortfall ends up on the employer's plate. You might have heard about the ""black hole in public sector pensions"" which is what this refers to - the investments that the government have made to pay public sector workers' pensions has not in fact been sufficient. The other type of scheme is a money purchase scheme. In this scheme, you and/or your employer make payments into an investment pot which is locked away until you retire. Once you retire, that pot is yours but there are restrictions on what you can do with it - you can use it to purchase an annuity (I will give you my £X,000 pension pot in return for you giving me an annual income of £Y, say) and you can take some of it as a lump sum. The onus is on you to make sure that you (and/or your employer) have contributed enough to make a large enough pot to give you the income you want to live on, and to make a sensible decision about what to do with the pot when you retire and what to use it as income. With either type of scheme, you can claim this pension after you reach retirement age, whether or not you are still working. In some schemes you are also permitted to claim the pension earlier than retirement age if you have stopped working - it will depend on the rules of the scheme. What counts as ""retirement age"" depends on how old you are now (and whether you are male or female) as the government has been pushing this age out as people have been living longer.  In addition to both schemes, there is also a ""state pension"" which is a fixed, non-means-tested, weekly amount paid from government funds. Again you are entitled to receive this after you pass retirement age, whether or not you are still working." This is more of an economics question than personal finance. That said, I already started writing an answer before I noticed, so here are a few points. I'll leave it open for others to expand the list. Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages The flip-side to the argument that more users means more stability is that the impact of a strong economy (on the value of the currency) is diluted somewhat by all the other users. Indeed, if adopted by another country with similar or greater GDP, that economy could end up becoming the primary driver of the currency's value.  It may be harder to control counterfeiting. Perhaps not in the issuing country itself, but in foreign countries that do not adopt new bills as quickly. The reason for the 10% rule of thumb is that this is roughly what you'll need to save for retirement in order to have the same standard of living in retirement as you do during your working years. Since each additional dollar produces less happiness you will maximize your happiness by equalizing your income over your entire life and thus this produces the maximum happiness. I found this interesting list https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/on-retirement/2011/12/05/the-most-tax-friendly-places-to-retire-abroad (mirror): Argentina Belize Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Ecuador France Ireland Italy Malaysia Mexico Panama Philippines Spain Thailand Uruguay One source confirming for Philippines: http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052615/what-are-financial-benefits-retiring-philippines.asp : You are exempt from income taxes on annuities and pensions Yeah there's a lot to talk about with basic income. Like how currently there is an incentive to not work harder or move up the socio-economic ladder because as you earn more your welfare benefits go away. So people think it's not worth getting a better job because they will pay more in taxes and lose benefits but now they are working harder and not getting more for it. A basic income wouldn't go away with that sweet new job promotion. Therefore there is an incentive to work more.  I like the basic income idea. But I wonder about how to handle immigration and global relations. You will have it in some countries where others are like literally falling apart. Basically we have a long way to go until we are comfortably collecting our BI checks. At least in the US.