These are the best places to retire in California, according to a new ranking
There are plenty of great reasons to retire here. We have year-round temperate climates in most places, especially along the coast. You're only ever a couple of hours' driving distance from world-class vacation destinations like Lake Tahoe, Napa Valley, Palm Springs and Santa Barbara, as well as plentiful national and state parks.
Major cities have some of the best hospital systems on the planet and a wide variety of cultural activities like museums and performing arts spaces. And Prop. 13 means if you've owned your home for a long time, you're likely getting a nice discount on property taxes compared to more recent neighbors — one you can take with you if you relocate within the state under Prop. 19.
When it comes to California, 'it's not just the warm weather, it's the variety, it's the culture, having access to anything,' said Jailyn Montero, a media relations specialist for Retirement Living. 'California is one of those states where you're not really lacking in any department.'
There are many different ways to evaluate how good a city is for seniors. The AARP's Livability Index scores communities based on expansive criteria across seven categories, including housing, transportation and health. It named San Francisco the top very large community for seniors.
Retirement Living's rankings have a more narrow focus: 'We looked at what we believe is most important to seniors,' Montero said. Her team put together the ranking based on the cost of living, the percentage of the population that are seniors, median rent and home sales prices, poverty level, and the local sales tax rate. The state's base sales tax rate is 7.25%.
Data for the analysis came from Redfin (home sales data retrieved in April 2025), the U.S. Census Bureau's 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, and tax software Avalara.
Researchers looked only at cities with populations of 100,000 or higher, so if you're looking for a more rural retirement, this list probably won't apply.
Five cities in the Bay Area made the top 20: Vacaville (No. 4), Richmond (5), Santa Rosa (7), Vallejo (10) and Concord (15). Those cities all offer more affordable housing options compared to a lot of the Bay Area, though sales tax rates also tend to be on the higher side.
Here are the top cities that made the list.
1. Roseville
Roseville has risen above its humble origins as a railroad junction to a city with nearly 160,000 residents. It was a standout in more than one recent ranking — Consumer Affairs named the Placer County city the best place to move to in California in 2025.
According to Retirement Living, Roseville's population is 18.9% people over 65. In places with larger shares of seniors, retirees 'are going to be surrounded by like-minded individuals,' Montero said, and those communities 'know how to take care of seniors.'
The analysis reported a median home sales price of $635,000 and median rent of $2,158 in Roseville — not low compared to national averages, but downright affordable for California.
Those lower housing costs contribute to Roseville's comparatively low poverty rate of 5.6% — roughly half of what it is for the rest of the state (11.3%). The sales tax in Roseville is 7.75%.
2. Oceanside
If hitting the beach is a key part of your retirement vision, you might consider Oceanside, a city of just over 170,000 people located along the coast in San Diego County. One-fifth of the population is seniors. The poverty rate is 8.3%. Homes and rent are going to be a bit more expensive — a median of $850,000 and $2,293, respectively, according to Retirement Living's data — and the sales tax is 8.25%. But it's tough to beat the views.
3. Torrance
Retirement Living called Torrance 'the most retiree-friendly city in California' due to its share of 65 and over population: 21.6%, the highest of any city on the list. That friendliness comes with a cost: The median home in this coastal city in Los Angeles County will set you back $1.3 million, the second-highest of all 20 California cities on Retirement Living's list. Median rent is $2,049, the poverty rate is 7.3%, and the sales tax is 10.25%.
Here are the other 17 cities on the list, with the Bay Area locations in bold.
Vacaville
Richmond
Modesto
Santa Rosa
Thousand Oaks
Simi Valley
Vallejo
Ventura
Huntington Beach
Inglewood
Garden Grove
Concord
Visalia
Elk Grove
Clovis
Glendale
Sacramento
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
2 Fintech ETFs to Buy With $2,000 and Hold Forever
Key Points Financial technology, or fintech, is making a comeback after a few tough years. From payment processing to cryptocurrency trading, there are plenty of opportunities in the space. Instead of picking individual fintech stocks, there are some excellent ETFs to consider. 10 stocks we like better than Global X Funds - Global X FinTech ETF › Financial technology, or fintech, was one of the worst performing parts of the stock market in the 2022 bear market and for the roughly two-year period that followed. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the economy turned to online payments, cashless money transfers, and cryptocurrency interest surged. When the pandemic-era restrictions ended, interest rates rose, and inflation hit the U.S. hard, many fintech companies struggled. However, we're slowly but surely starting to see a resurgence of fintech stocks in 2025. Just to name a couple of examples, banking disruptor SoFi (NASDAQ: SOFI) has seen member growth accelerate recently, and PayPal (NASDAQ: PYPL) has returned to user growth after a multiyear lull. There are some massive opportunities in fintech, to put it mildly. But this can also be a volatile industry to invest in. If you want fintech exposure in your portfolio but also aren't sur what individual stocks to buy, there are some excellent ETFs you might want to consider. Global X Fintech ETF The Global X Fintech ETF (NASDAQ: FINX) is one of the oldest fintech ETFs, and it tracks an index of companies that aim to transform the financial sector. Since its inception in 2016, the ETF has delivered 10.6% annualized returns, and that's after its 0.68% expense ratio is reflected. This is a weighted index fund, so generally speaking, larger fintech companies make up a larger percentage of the portfolio. Here's a look at some of the top holdings as of this writing: Company (Symbol) % of ETF Coinbase (NASDAQ: COIN) 9.76% Intuit (NASDAQ: INTU) 6.36% Fidelity National Info (NYSE: FIS) 5.75% PayPal 5.55% Adyen (OTC: ADYE.Y) 5.13% Data source: Global X. In short, this is a great way to get passive exposure to the Who's Who of fintech, and for a reasonable fee structure. Ark Fintech Innovation ETF The Global X ETF is a passive one, which means that it simply tracks an index of fintech companies and aims to match its performance over time, net of fees. On the other hand, the Ark Fintech Innovation ETF (NYSEMKT: ARKF), which has more than $1.2 billion in assets, is an actively managed fund. This means that portfolio managers (in this case notable tech investor Cathie Wood) select stocks with the goal of beating a benchmark. Because of the actively managed nature, there are two big portfolio differences. First, the definition of a "fintech stock" is a little broader. For example, the fund invests about 5% of its assets in Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC). Second, it's not just large fintech stocks that make up the top holdings. As you can see from the list of the top five holdings, there are some that are not large caps, and that are not traditionally considered to be fintech stocks: Company (Symbol) % of ETF Shopify (NASDAQ: SHOP) 9.30% Robinhood (NASDAQ: HOOD) 8.64% Coinbase (NASDAQ: COIN) 8.10% Circle Internet Group (NYSE: CRCL) 6.06% Roblox (NYSE: RBLX) 4.99% Data source: Ark Invest. The Ark Fintech Innovation ETF has a slightly higher 0.75% expense ratio, which is still quite reasonable for a highly specialized, actively managed fund. And it's worth noting that since the ETF's inception in early 2019, it has delivered annualized returns of nearly 16%. The bottom line is that these are both solid ways to invest in fintech stocks without trying to pick individual winners, but there are some big differences. If you want a broad fintech investment that should do very well no matter what companies win, the Global X fund could be the way to go, but if you're looking to have more exposure to smaller, high-potential companies and also can tolerate more volatility, the Ark ETF could be a better fit for you. Should you buy stock in Global X Funds - Global X FinTech ETF right now? Before you buy stock in Global X Funds - Global X FinTech ETF, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Global X Funds - Global X FinTech ETF wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $634,627!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,046,799!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,037% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 182% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 21, 2025 Matt Frankel has positions in PayPal, Roblox, Shopify, and SoFi Technologies and has the following options: short January 2026 $135 calls on Shopify. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Adyen, Bitcoin, Intuit, PayPal, Roblox, and Shopify. The Motley Fool recommends Coinbase Global and recommends the following options: long January 2027 $42.50 calls on PayPal and short September 2025 $77.50 calls on PayPal. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. 2 Fintech ETFs to Buy With $2,000 and Hold Forever was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Forbes
3 hours ago
- Forbes
Platform Engineering Lessons From Public Sector Technology
The UK Houses Of Parliament & Elizabth Clock Tower (Big Ben bell inside). We need more software. Look into any corner of the enterprise computing landscape and you'll find a need for additional applications, wider network connections between existing resources and new-age AI entities, additional cloud observability services, supplementary data storage and analytics functions and (often above all, although organizations don't like to admit it) better data integration. What that often boils down to in the mind of the average CEO, CIO, CISO or CTO is the management control factor i.e. they want to be able to view their technology deployment and twiddle knobs (literally) on a vizualisation dashboard that turns the flow up, down or outwards on any given stream of the IT stack. But control isn't always what matters most; despite Covid-19, the rise of compartmentalized containerization with Kubernetes and disaggregated multi-cloud norms becoming the de facto standard… some people still haven't understood the need to embrace flexibility as the central ethos around which all computing structures should be built. The truth is, change will always outpace delivery if platforms are built for control, not flexibility. River Of Constant Change This (above) truism was offered by Jonny Williams, chief digital adviser, UK public sector at Red Hat. Speaking from his governmentally-aligned viewpoint (a sector that, in the UK at least, is traditionally known for its proclivity for management meetings, usually with tea and biscuits, rather than any esoteric adherence to flexible autonomy and optionality), he thinks that digital transformation remains a clear ambition across government. But as the recent Blueprint for a Modern Digital Government appears to suggest, delivery isn't working fast or effectively enough. 'The blueprint pulls no punches: transformation is too slow to meet the scale of public sector ambition,' said Williams. 'At the same time, teams across departments are being asked to do more with less. So it's not just about cost. It's about fewer people, less time, less complexity… and less friction. While the goals are consistent (better security, higher resilience, improved scalability), the blockers to achieving them are also familiar: legacy infrastructure, siloed delivery, too much overhead and not enough flow.' Williams uses the term 'flow' in the context of its much-beloved understanding by hardcore software application developers; when they are really in-the-zone (headphones on… Metallica playing, diet Pepsi and cold pizza on the side of the desk, keyboard alight with fingers peppering the command line with great code), they are said to be in a state of 'flow' and, clearly, that's a good place to be. In this context, many advocates and evangelists across the tech industry argue that platform engineering offers a compelling way forward i.e. flexibility from above and below is the core mantra. This means it's not about building another static technology stack. It's about creating evolving internal developer platforms that abstract complexity, support developers and accelerate service delivery… all while staying aligned with operational goals. An Insufficiency Of Infrastructure 'The UK Government (and for that matter the ruling body in any other Western or modern nation) typically doesn't lack ideas, it lacks infrastructure built to adapt when those ideas inevitably shift,' explained Williams. 'In many government departments, ageing platforms were built years ago to meet a particular need. They were often delivered via traditional programmes or projects, with big design up front, and implemented over months or years. They were rarely built with long-term evolution in mind.' At first, these incumbent government platforms did what they were supposed to. But the needs of the services running on top of them changed. Teams began exploring different architectural approaches… and quickly found that they needed flexible networking, updated security models and an ability to serve new types of workloads. Many want to experiment with AI or machine learning. But old platforms don't (and generally can't) keep up. The result is that teams get slowed down, demotivated and frustrated by tooling and processes that don't support the way they work. This is what the IT industry likes to call platform drift, or the 'lava lamp effect' i.e. teams bubbling away from the original platform until eventually, they break off entirely. 'Platform drift leads to platform sprawl. Different teams adopt alternative platforms to meet their needs. Any organization in this scenario loses consistency and the number of platforms multiplies without scaling value,' said Williams. 'This pattern is common across government, where hundreds of departments have deployed hundreds if not thousands of different platforms to solve the same problems. When developers face slow processes that ask them to raise a ticket just to provision an environment, or where AI is entirely distinct from their existing platform, or they can't get rapid feedback on a release, it's no surprise they look for alternatives. But at the scale of government, these challenges have an enormous impact.' How Traditional IT Platforms Work The root problem is not just technical. It relates to an entire delivery model. Traditional platforms are focused on maintaining a stable state. They solve problems after they appear, rather than anticipating future needs. That mindset, not just the tools themselves, is what many in this space think is holding back progress. Technology evangelists say they know that this challenge will only increase with the rise of emerging AI requirements. Platform engineering flips that model on its head. Instead of building a one-off platform and walking away, organizations build internal platforms the same way they build public-facing services… iteratively, based on user needs, with a product mindset. 'It starts with abstraction. A well-designed platform removes complexity, offering reusable components and self-service capabilities. Teams don't need to raise a ticket to create an environment or deploy code. They consume services directly. That's how you reduce stress, risk and overhead. That's how you do more with less,' said Red Hat's Williams. 'It also means continuous improvement. Platform teams gather feedback and ship updates. They measure usage and performance. Some of the best platform teams we've seen in government use product reviews, team charters, skills matrices, backlogs and user surveys… the same practices you'd expect from any good digital service team. Crucially, platform engineering enables what techies like to refer to as 'evolutionary modernization opportunities' today, meaning that rather than rip and replace, departments can support legacy applications and new services side by side, often making use of virtual machines and containers. It's all about giving teams the space to modernize incrementally, all while ensuring the platform can keep up. That's where the idea of the thinnest viable platform comes in i.e. start small, deliver value early and meet real user needs… then expand responsibly as those needs evolve. The Platform Is The (Change) Lever For digital transformation to succeed, Williams says platforms need to stop being 'passive infrastructure' and start being 'active enablers' in modern cloud computing architectures. That means embedding user needs into their DNA. It means investing in empowered, iterative, data-informed teams who align with wider organisational goals. 'Platform engineering isn't a silver bullet. But it's one of the clearest, most actionable levers we have to make digital transformation real – not just in pilots or proof of concepts, but at scale. With the right mindset, the right structure and the right investment, we can build platforms that keep pace with ambition. We can make value delivery easier. Then we can finally move from intent to impact,' concluded Williams. But can we really move forward with progressive government technology architectures (a sort of quadrilateral oxymoron, in the past at least) and talk about a future where public sector IT platform teams are established so that they develop and share projects? Amanda Brock, CEO of OpenUK, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting open computing, open data and open source at large points out what this future might look like… and highlights who is already working on it. 'We are seeing Emily Middleton [UK director for digital centre design at the British government's Department for Science, Innovation and Technology] drive departments' efforts centrally," said Brock. "This is happening alongside the UK's Government Digital Service, the Cabinet Office and others all being urged to operate as a central team, which is the right first step. Now they are looking to build cohesion and skills, to streamline processes and build understanding. I see this bedding-in towards a platform engineering approach as critical to create good practices and avoid silos.' Going deeper, Brock suggests that a centralized approach to computing helps to build shared understanding; this (in theory if not in practice) enables teams (in government or in the private sector) to to check whether others are already working on the same idea, and contribute to existing projects rather than building another new project. 'We are seeing talk of software and data service cataloges, but however we ultimately develop… building open source infrastructure as the base of a future digital spine at this level will allow access for all parts of the public sector and create a well-curated infrastructure that becomes an interoperable de facto standard,' said Brock, speaking at a media event in the House of Commons terrace this summer. Public Sector Progressiveness? Could we move to a technology future where the breadth and girth of public bodies enables them to adopt platform engineering for its flexibility factors even faster than we see in the private sector? Even if the deployment surface is 20% of existing technology projects at this level, the 80:20 knock-on effect could (arguably) be positive for all sectors. Insular information technology silos may soon be regarded as just as damaging as cultural, economic or political insularity, it may just be time to collaborate and listen.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
I led teams at Meta and Airbnb. My Big Tech career taught me an important lesson about dealing with chaos and crisis at work.
Judd Antin has held leadership roles at Meta and Airbnb, where he worked between 2012 and 2022. During that time, he led teams through rapid changes, such as layoffs. He learned one secret to effective leadership: authentic clarity. Over the course of my career in Big Tech, I've been lucky to work at several successful, fast-growing companies. At Meta and Airbnb, I helped scale research and design teams from 2012 to 2022, ultimately becoming Head of Design Studio at Airbnb. I loved building teams of talented people, but it wasn't all roses. Rapid changes and looming crises were constants, as they seem to be at most companies. For example, I was working at Airbnb when COVID-19 hit in 2020. The company lost 80% of its business in a matter of weeks, and by May, I was forced to lay off more than 25% of my team. Managing that crisis and recovery was one of the most difficult leadership crucibles of my career. The everyday chaos of a fast-paced company was just as educational, though, and one strategy for managing it rose above the rest. The secret to effective leadership in times of change — whether it's reorgs, strategy shifts, or layoffs — is to provide authentic clarity. Clarity allows people to move forward calmly, even if they don't have all the answers. In a chaotic environment, providing clarity takes frequent communication in an authentic voice. Clarity, not certainty Early in my leadership career, I mistakenly assumed that being a decisive leader in a crisis meant projecting certainty. My logic was that people need to be reassured their leader knows exactly what to do. I quickly realized that was a fantasy. I can't remember a single time in my leadership career when I had all the answers. Once, in an effort to project certainty, I confidently presented some details using guesswork. But things were moving fast, and the information I shared was proven wrong just days later. What I thought would be useful only made me look foolish and ultimately damaged my team's trust in me. After a few failed efforts, I realized my team didn't need me to have all the answers; they just needed me to provide clarity about what was happening. I learned the importance of clarity in three key areas: What is happening? It's essential to clearly state the facts as you know them, even if they're incomplete, to help people process what's happening. Why is it happening? Sharing the "what" without the "why" is a key mistake. My understanding of the "why" was usually incomplete, but sharing any context I had helped my teams make sense of it. What does it mean for me? It's usually hard for people to translate high-level changes down to their level. Even simple reminders like "Your day-to-day work won't change," or "Here's when we'll know how this will affect our road map," helped people feel calmer. The best leaders I've worked with were proactive about answering these questions, reaching out to teams early and often. I made it a practice to hold frequent Q&A sessions with my teams, and say things like: "Good question, I don't know. Let me see if I can find out." I found that even a response like that could be clarifying. Communicate like a human People can tell immediately when leaders aren't being themselves, so it's important to communicate in your own voice. Early in my career, I followed instructions from HR or internal comms teams and stuck to the talking points. I used templates for my emails and repeated the language I was given during leadership meetings. But my team quickly called me out, and I realized I was hurting my reputation by communicating like a corporate puppet. Rather than relying on jargon or HR talking points, I started trying to speak honestly and vulnerably. The strategy I developed wasn't going rogue in a sensitive situation; it was translating the company's carefully chosen talking points into my own voice, using empathy. In practice, this also meant I'd say things like: "I don't know what's going to happen either. The uncertainty isn't great, but I'll let you know as soon as I know more." Or: "This sucks. Layoffs are hard for everyone, especially when it's good friends and talented colleagues we're saying goodbye to." Acknowledging real things like frustration or mistakes helped build trust by signalling we were all in the same boat. Repeat yourself. Then repeat yourself. The No. 1 mistake I've noticed leaders make during times of change isn't just poor communication; it's infrequent communication. Even leaders who were good at providing authentic clarity weren't doing so consistently. They'd communicate once and assume everyone understood. Or worse, they'd say nothing until they had all the answers, or there was something new to say. But that vacuum would often be filled with gossip and speculation. I learned the solution was simply to repeat the message. I'd share the most important messages multiple times via several channels and in different words, because different framings might resonate with different people. People have high anxiety and a short memory in times of crisis. Touching base often, even if there's little new information to share, builds confidence in a visible, highly present leader. Even without new information, it helps people feel confident that they didn't miss something. Leading through change was never about having all the answers During my Big Tech career, I observed that the most effective leaders in a crisis were rarely the ones with all the answers or the boldest vision. They were the ones who communicated clearly, showed up consistently, and were willing to be authentic. That's what builds trust and gets teams through chaos. Representatives for Meta and Airbnb did not respond to a request for comment from Business Insider. Do you have a story to share about managing teams through rough seas in Big Tech? Contact the editor, Charissa Cheong, at ccheong@ Read the original article on Business Insider Solve the daily Crossword
