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.
Well, if you worked in the United States you have social security, and medicare and medicaid in most cases as well.  So you have a small amount of income to spend every month to cover your most basic living expenses, as well as your basic medical expenses.  At least, that's the idea. In reality, it probably isn't anywhere near enough money for most to live comfortably.  Also, there is a real fear that the US will have to inflate itself out of its debt to some extent in the future.  This theory implies that the money retired individuals have saved or are receiving down the road could buy significantly less in the future than they expect. If you have the ability to put money away into an IRA or 401K early in your life, it will be greatly beneficial to do so.  However, that is another issue I won't begin to discuss fully here. Edit since your question was restated after I typed my initial response, the final answer is:  You will receive some assistance from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  You will most likely need to either continue working, draw on savings such as an IRA or 401k, or will need assistance from others.  If none of those are options, you would most likely end up living in poverty or worse. There are a lot of forces at play here, one of which is addressed in your second bullet point. Housing, transportation, food, and healthcare are pretty much the staple expenses of a modern day human.  While these expenses all have a range from minimum required to function and luxurious all humans incur these costs.  The lower rung wage earners earn an amount closer to their actual costs than higher earners.  As income scales up these expenses typically also scale up with different lifestyle choices.   There reaches a breaking point though where is so much excess to your income that you begin meaningfully spending on investments; you may also begin to take a meaningful portion of your compensation in securities rather than currency.  In times where the economy is booming, folks who hold assets in securities rather than currency really win.  In 2008 people in that highest rung really took a wealth hit (and probably an income hit). Yup. Same reason why developers go to Mexico and build huge resorts in the poorest places.   Then you get the people who live there to work for you for dirt-cheap because, what else are they going to do? If the per capita income is $10,000, a yearly salary of $20,000 is going to look awesome. These scenarios discuss the period to 2025. They assess the deep uncertainty that is paralysing decision-taking. They identify the roots of this as the failure of the social model on which the West has operated since the 1920s. Related and pending problems imply that this situation is not recoverable without major change: for example, pensions shortfalls are greater in real terms that entire expenditure on World War II, and health care and age support will treble that. Due to the prolonged recession, competition will impact complex industries earlier than expected.  Social responses which seek job protection, the maintenance of welfare and also support in old age will tear at the social fabric of the industrial world. There are ways to meet this, implying a major change in approach, and a characteristic way in which to fail to respond to it in time, creating a dangerous and unstable world. The need for such change will alter the social and commercial environment very considerably. The absence of such change will alter it even more.  The summary is available [here](http://www.chforum.org/scenario2012/paper-4-6.shtml) or at the foot of the link given in the header. The much richer paper is [here](http://www.chforum.org/scenario2012/paper-4-1.shtml).  These scenarios are the latest in a series in a project that dates back to 1995. Over a hundred people participated from every continent, over a six month period. The working documents are available on the web. Many examples in Europe and other countries have shown once you break that barrier people will go to extreme lengths to avoid it. So much so back in the 80s in the UK tax rates over 75% were imposed, needless to say when they reduced it to 40% they actually got more money.   Ultimately it does more harm than good to the economy and means well paid jobs leave the country and go elsewhere. The exact same thing is happening right now with the French moving to London.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18234930 To answer your question, Retirement Revolution may fit the bill to some extent. I'd also like to address some of the indirect assumptions that were made in your bullet points.  I'm convinced that the best way to overcome this is not simply to hold down a good job with COLAs every year, max out your IRA accounts and 401(k)s, invest another 10-20% on top, and live off of the savings and whatever Social Security decides to pay you. Instead, the trick is to not retire -- to make a transition into an income-producing activity that can be done in the typical retirement years, hopefully one that is closer to one's calling (i.e., more fulfilling).  This takes time, not money.  If people just shut off the TV and spent the time building up a side business that has a high passive component, they'd stand a much better chance of not outliving their money. Losing the manufacturing jobs is a necessary evil of any developed nation. Yes Germany is an exception but that is only because they specialise in expensive high quality items. This transition has happened before in every developed nation when manufacturing replaced agriculture as the main sector of income and the same is happening again.  The key is that we have to adapt and accept that rather than fight it. Fighting this transition will simply slow progress. People simply have to retrain and adapt to a knew skill set. Yes it isn't easy but trying to artificially stop low paid jobs moving to places with a cheaper labour force is impossible. Companies have to remain globally competitive.   I appreciate if everyone globally gets paid a descent salary this wouldn't be an issue. However, this is not the case and will not be any time soon. The reality is manufacturing of non luxury goods will hardly exist in  developed nations and will be solely down by the likes of china and india. However give it another 20 years china will be in exactly the same boat losing their manufacturing jobs to a less developed nations or maybe robots by then. if someone wants to retire, they can save up for it themselves. we're no longer the richest country in the world surrounded by a rest-of-the-world destroyed by world war II. big news. on average, people need to work to get by. That's not a valid counterpoint.    It doesn't rub you the right way because it would require you to take responsibility for your own future and do the work yourself.  It doesn't rub you the right way because it would mean that you couldn't blame anyone else if you weren't able to retire when you wanted to. While it may look similar income and wealth inequality is not directly related H1 visa.  After all, it provides someone from poorer region jobs.  It has more to do with technology. Stopping H1B visa won't solve that issue. The US is one of the only countries which taxes its citizens on global income. You're  ignoring the high fixed costs of compliance with the US tax code, both for individuals and institutions. Compliance is so big an issue that foreign banks are turning away US customers rather than having to comply with FATCA, leaving people unable to open a bank account. Also, renunciations of citizenship are up something like 400%, and they aren't all billionaires. There are a host of programs in the US to help low/no-income seniors: Many states discount property taxes for the elderly as well. Not a dream retirement, but plenty of people are provided for without having prepared for retirement whether due to poor decisions or unfortunate circumstances. Indian workers are hard to manage.   I work in Japan as a consultant managing offshore development projects. The Indian companies are not doing that well here. They cannot deliver, and the Indian companies themselves are very slow to move. They are not even landing the jobs because Indian expat execs are too slow.   I have noticed that they are using development centers in the US and China as well to support global contracts. The reason is that Indian workers stay on the job for little longer than 3 mos before they move onto a better position. They are only interested in status climbing because the companies are nickeling and diming them while management charges much the same as a local Japanese integrators.  On the few occasions they have tried to recruit me, even though I agreed to take a salary reduction (lehman shock) and meet their conditions, they were too wishy washy made the proposal late and never hired me. Overall way too flaky. Because all things being equal, unless they can pay the new graduate significantly less (which they won't be able to do, if the Millenials are still hard up for work), then employers will likely defer to candidates that they deem to be more mature. Additionally, Millenials won't just sit around; they'll work independently, take courses at community college to advance their knowledge, etc.  At this point, I'd be more concerned about what happens if the economy DOESN'T return... Public sector and private industry retirement plans, taxation and estate planning would be the most substantial differences between the two countries. The concepts for accumulating wealth are the same, and if you are doing anything particularly lucrative with an above average amount of risk, the aforementioned differences are not very relevant, for a twenty something.