Why do people rarely consider retiring to another country with a lower cost of living?

Greetings from Brazil! I have been reflecting on this topic because, following the community here, I see people with large amounts of money in dollars, but who are far from achieving the financial freedom they dream of. I know that there are factors such as the desire to stay close to home and/or family, but it seems that there is greater resistance than expected to considering international alternatives.

For example, in Brazil, with something around R$240,000 per year (about US$43.2K), you can live in a safe city, in a gated community, surrounded by comfort and premium services. It is practically a parallel reality, shielded from the main problems that appear in the news – violence, precarious infrastructure, deficient public services. In this context, even a country with economic and social challenges can become an excellent place to live, as long as you have the necessary capital.

Now, taking this logic to another level: if the goal is to maximize quality of life and optimize costs, why not consider countries where the cost of living is even lower, but still offer excellent infrastructure for those with purchasing power? A classic example is Thailand, where the cost of living for a luxury standard can be much more affordable than in Brazil or the US.

If someone manages to save and build up a significant amount of wealth in the US, does it make sense to insist on retiring there, where costs such as health and housing can be exorbitant? Or would it make more sense to take this wealth to a country where it offers a much higher quality of life at a lower cost?

It is curious to see how many investors are concerned with optimizing investments, cutting expenses and increasing income, but few apply this same strategic mindset to choosing where they will live and retire. Perhaps it is cultural attachment, uncertainty about adapting to a new country or simply a bias of familiarity.

What do you think?