By Maksym Misichenko · Yahoo Finance ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus is that the median retirement savings data masks significant structural issues, including high cost of living, longevity risk, and liquidity constraints on home equity. The 'save more' advice is insufficient, and investors should consider the real drivers of retirement security.
Risk: Longevity risk in high cost of living states further eroding already thin real balances
Opportunity: Monitoring real estate investment trusts (REITs) and senior housing operators for potential shifts in retirement security
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Some offers on this page are from advertisers who pay us, which may affect which products we write about, but not our recommendations. See our Advertiser Disclosure.
Wondering how your retirement savings stack up against the rest of the country? While everyone's financial situation is different, retirement account balances vary dramatically depending on where you live.
The latest U.S. Census Bureau data highlights where Americans are the most — and least — prepared for retirement. Explore the map below to see how your state compares.
Note: The data in this map is based on median savings; a relatively small number of households with multimillion-dollar accounts can pull the average upward, making it appear that the typical resident has more saved than they actually do. The median represents the midpoint — half of households have more saved, and half have less — providing a more realistic picture of what a typical household in a state has accumulated.
Although general guidelines provide a target for retirement savings, several factors can influence how much you need to save for retirement and how long it may take to reach your goal. One of the biggest is the cost of living.
Planning to retire in a relatively expensive state, such as California, Hawaii, or New York, may require a larger nest egg. That's because higher housing, grocery, utility, healthcare, and transportation costs can increase the amount of income you'll need to maintain your desired lifestyle in retirement.
The good news: Wages also tend to be higher in more expensive states, which may give workers more money to contribute to retirement accounts. For example, California has the highest cost of living in the country — 10.7% higher than the national average. However, it also has one of the highest average hourly earnings according to the BLS. That said, higher pay doesn't always fully offset a higher cost of living.
Taxes can further affect how much workers are able to save. For one, the more you earn, the more of your income is taxed. Plus, state income tax rates and rules vary considerably, and some states don't have an individual income tax at all.
Taxes in retirement also matter, since states differ in how they treat withdrawals from retirement accounts, pensions, and Social Security benefits.
Read more: What to do when your pay raises aren't keeping up with inflation
Here's a look at the states with the highest median retirement savings.
In Maryland, the median retirement savings balance is $120,000. The cost of living in this state is 5% higher than the national average. It has a higher median home price of $448,407 — nearly $50,000 higher than the national average, according to Redfin. The top marginal tax rate is 5.75%.
New Jersey came in as the 4th state with the highest retirement account savings at $134,000. The cost of living in this state is almost 10% higher than the national average. It has a higher median home price of $563,000, according to Redfin. This state also has one of the highest top marginal tax rates at 10.75%.
In Washington, the median retirement savings balance is $143,400 — the third highest in the country. Cost of living is the sixth highest in the US at 7% higher than the national average. The median home price in Washington is a staggering $612,823 and the top marginal tax rate is 7%.
Hawaii's median retirement savings account balance is $149,000. Along with ranking highly in terms of retirement savings, it also has the second-highest cost of living out of all U.S. states. Median home prices in Hawaii hover just over $722,000 and the top marginal tax rate is 11%.
The state with the highest median retirement savings is Massachusetts at $150,000. Fortunately for retirees in this state, the average cost of living doesn't even make the top 5. The cost of living in Massachusetts is 5.8% higher than the national average. The median home price in Massachusetts is $667,628 and the top marginal tax rate is 9%.
Here's a look at the states with the lowest average retirement savings.
In Louisiana, the median retirement savings balance is $50,000. However, it also has one of the lowest costs of living in the country at 11.8% below the national average, as well as one of the lowest average median home prices in the nation at $259,977 according to data from Redfin. That's compared to the national average of $398,771. Louisiana also has a top marginal tax rate of 3%.
In New Mexico, the median retirement savings balance is $50,000. Cost of living in this state sits at 7.8% below the national average. New Mexico's average median home price is $357,729 according to data from Redfin. This state has a top marginal tax rate of 5.9%.
The state of Alabama has a median retirement account savings of $46,000. The cost of living in this state is 11.2% below the national average. Alabama's median home price is $307,408 according to data from Redfin. This state has a top marginal tax rate of 5%.
Oklahoma's median retirement account savings sits at $39,450, the second-lowest of all U.S. states. The cost of living in this state is 12.2% below the national average. Oklahoma's median home price is $264,062 according to data from Redfin. This state has a top marginal tax rate of 4.75%.
Mississippi took the spot for the lowest retirement savings balance of all states with a median of $35,000. The cost of living in this state is 13% below the national average. Mississippi's average median home price is $281,002 according to data from Redfin. This state has a top marginal tax rate of 4.4%.
Read more: What is the average retirement savings by age?
It's impossible to predict exactly how much you'll need to retire comfortably because so many factors — from your future expenses to inflation and healthcare costs — can change over time. However, you can build a retirement plan based on what you know today and adjust it as your circumstances evolve.
When deciding on a target savings goal, you should consider:
Living expenses tend to decrease as people age, but this isn't always the case. So, it's important to consider all possibilities when calculating how much you need to feel financially secure in your later years.
Carefully consider your current expenses, how those might evolve over time, and what kinds of new expenses you may face as you age, such as healthcare or long-term care. When thinking about these costs, you should also account for inflation and how that may require that you pad your retirement account with extra funds.
Read more: Is a 'mini retirement' right for you?
Your retirement account may not be your only source of income in retirement. For many people, it's just one piece of a broader financial plan. Social Security benefits, pensions, investment income, inheritances, and other assets can all affect how much you need to save in your retirement accounts. Considering these additional income sources can help you set a more realistic retirement savings goal.
If you're aiming to retire early, this may mean saving more money and saving aggressively from an earlier age to hit your goals on time. However, if you plan to spend more years in the workforce, this will give you a bit more time and flexibility and reduce the number of retired years you need to save for.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"U.S. median retirement balances remain dangerously low relative to realistic longevity and healthcare costs, especially once cost-of-living and wage-COL gaps are properly risk-adjusted."
The article's median retirement savings data (MA $150k, MS $35k) shows a clear coastal vs. heartland divide, but it glosses over that high-savings states like HI, MA, WA also carry 5-11% higher COL and sky-high home prices ($612k–$722k medians). Median figures are useful yet mask that many households have near-zero balances; the piece underplays how state taxes, healthcare inflation, and longevity risk amplify shortfalls far more than geography alone. Wages may offset some COL but rarely enough for the bottom half of earners. Overall this highlights structural retirement insecurity rather than simple 'save more' advice.
The strongest case against alarm is that lower-COL states (MS, OK, AL) need far smaller nest eggs to maintain equivalent lifestyles; a $35k Mississippi balance plus Social Security may stretch similarly to $150k in Massachusetts once housing and taxes are adjusted.
"Liquid retirement savings are an incomplete proxy for financial security because they ignore the critical role of home equity as a non-liquid retirement asset."
The article conflates 'median savings' with 'retirement readiness,' which is a dangerous oversimplification. While it correctly notes that high-cost states require larger nest eggs, it ignores the massive disparity in employer-sponsored pension access and home equity—the latter being the primary 'savings' vehicle for lower-income cohorts. A $35,000 median in Mississippi looks dire, but if that household owns their home outright, their burn rate is fundamentally different from a renter in Massachusetts. We are seeing a structural shift where retirement security is increasingly tied to real estate appreciation rather than liquid 401(k) balances. Investors should monitor REITs and senior housing operators, as a 'savings gap' will likely force a surge in home equity extraction or downsizing.
The data might simply reflect that households in lower-cost states prioritize debt reduction and property ownership over liquid retirement accounts, making them more resilient to market volatility than the article implies.
"Median retirement savings across all states are inadequate relative to life expectancy and healthcare costs, and the article's state-by-state comparison obscures a systemic undersaving crisis rather than identifying genuinely well-positioned cohorts."
This article presents state-level retirement savings data without addressing the elephant in the room: median balances of $35k–$150k are catastrophically low against any realistic retirement need. A 65-year-old with $150k in Massachusetts faces ~30 years of retirement; even a 4% withdrawal rate yields $6k annually—far below living expenses. The article conflates correlation (high-income states save more) with causation, ignoring that higher savings may reflect selection bias (wealthier people migrate to expensive metros) rather than proof that location *enables* retirement readiness. Critically absent: what portion of these 'savings' sits in tax-advantaged accounts vs. taxable brokerage, and how state tax treatment actually impacts real after-tax withdrawal power.
The article's framing that high-COL states are 'better prepared' because residents save more dollars is backwards—it may simply mean they're forced to accumulate nominally larger balances to cover inflated expenses, masking that they're no better off in real purchasing-power terms than lower-COL residents with smaller balances.
"Median state retirement savings is a noisy proxy for retirement readiness; the real risk lies in healthcare costs, longevity, and changes to tax/withdrawal rules that can erode spendable income."
The headline medians are a useful snapshot, but they miss the real drivers of retirement security. Median balances hide asset mix (retirement accounts vs. home equity) and age cohorts, and they don reflect how many households actually need to draw down over 20-30 years. They also exclude future health-care costs, long-term care, and changes to Social Security or tax treatment that could erode spendable income. Regional comparisons can mislead if wage growth, plan access, or demographics aren controlled for. In short, a state median savings by itself is a weak predictor of whether its residents will retire comfortably.
Devil's advocate: A counter view is that higher medians in expensive states may reflect stronger earnings, plan access, and automatic enrollment, implying better long-run retirement readiness even if liquidity at retirement is uneven.
"Higher longevity in high-savings states amplifies retirement shortfalls more than home equity or tax treatment offsets."
Claude's 4% rule example on $150k is misleading—most retirees blend SS, pensions, and part-time work; pure drawdown is rare. Nobody flagged longevity risk concentration: high-COL states also have 2-4yr higher life expectancy, stretching already thin real balances further. This compounds the structural shortfall beyond nominal medians or home equity.
"Treating home equity as a primary retirement vehicle creates a dangerous liquidity trap that ignores tax-drag and market volatility."
Gemini’s focus on home equity as a retirement proxy is dangerous. Relying on real estate appreciation assumes liquidity that doesn't exist without downsizing or reverse mortgages—both of which carry massive friction costs and interest rate sensitivity. If housing markets soften or liquidity dries up, those 'asset-rich' households become trapped. We are ignoring the tax-drag on 401(k) withdrawals; as tax brackets potentially rise, those nominal balances will be shredded, leaving retirees with even less real purchasing power than current medians suggest.
"Longevity risk compounds shortfalls, but we need to know whether reported 'savings' medians already reflect home equity liquidation—if so, true liquid readiness is worse than stated."
Grok's longevity risk point is sharp—high-COL states' 2-4yr life expectancy edge directly erodes already-thin balances. But we're sidestepping a harder truth: median $150k in MA likely includes substantial home equity extraction already baked into 'retirement savings' via HELOCs or downsizing proceeds. If that's true, the nominal balance overstates liquid retirement purchasing power. The real question: how much of these medians are *actually* accessible without forced asset sales or debt?
"Home equity-based retirement framing is brittle; liquidity and cycle risks undermine real spendable income over a 20–30 year horizon."
Gemini over-prioritizes home equity as retirement savings; that frame ignores liquidity friction and cycle risk. Even outright home ownership isn't cash in the bank: downsizing, reverse mortgages, or HELOCs introduce rate risk, borrowing costs, and forced sale distress in downturns. Highlighting 'home as retirement' begs the question of real, adjustable spendable income through 20–30 years—tax, health costs, and potential housing shocks must be modeled.
The panel consensus is that the median retirement savings data masks significant structural issues, including high cost of living, longevity risk, and liquidity constraints on home equity. The 'save more' advice is insufficient, and investors should consider the real drivers of retirement security.
Monitoring real estate investment trusts (REITs) and senior housing operators for potential shifts in retirement security
Longevity risk in high cost of living states further eroding already thin real balances