What Does Opportunity Look Like Where You Live?
![](http://web.archive.org./web/20230519195545im_/https://static01.nyt.com/packages/flash/multimedia/ICONS/transparent.png)
Life expectancy at birth, by metro area
The life expectancy in most American metro areas is around 80 years. But it varies enormously depending on your neighborhood.
Here are life expectancy estimates in the richest and poorest neighborhoods in each metro area. High-income people can often expect to live 10 to 20 years longer than lower-income people.
Nationwide, the largest gaps are in Washington, D.C. (27 years), Columbus, Ohio (26 years), Kansas City, Mo. (23).
The inequality in life expectancy highlights another problem: The country’s cities — historically the nation’s engines of opportunity — often exacerbate inequities today.
Here, we’re presenting a series of charts that highlight both the promise and the problem of American cities. If you want to enter your county, we will highlight it throughout the article:
We’re going to start with income, which helps drive so many other trends. Over the past 50 years, the average income in nearly every metro area has soared:
Average income per capita, 1969-2018 by metro area
In 1969, most metro areas had income per capita of between $10,000 and $30,000.
By 2018, incomes soared almost everywhere.
But these numbers don’t tell the full story. The average has risen in part because incomes for the affluent have soared. Incomes for the middle class and poor have risen much less rapidly:
Ratio of 90th-percentile wages to 10th-percentile wages, 1980-2015
This chart compares the incomes of the affluent with those of the poor in each metro area. In 1980, Americans at the 90th percentile in these metros — those earning more money than 90 percent of other workers — made four times more than Americans at the 10th percentile.
Over the next 35 years, inequality rose in most places. By 2015, the richest New Yorkers made seven times more than the lowest-income New Yorkers.
Those numbers are snapshots, which don’t follow the same people over the course of their lives. But studies that do track the course of people’s lives show an even more alarming pattern: Many people who grow up in low- and middle-income families are struggling to climb up the income ladder.
Recent research has tracked children who grew up in families in the bottom 25 percent of incomes between 1978 and 1983. What happened to their incomes when they reached adulthood? This chart tells that story:
Median income mobility for people who grew up poor, by metro area
Children who grew up at the 25th percentile of income distribution — poorer than three-fourths of other families — tend to reach the 43rd percentile, meaning they are better off than their parents were yet still below average.
In some cities that have been celebrated for rapid economic growth — like Atlanta and Charlotte, N.C. — upward mobility is even less common. These cities have attracted new upper-income workers from other metro areas, but opportunity remains mostly closed to huge swaths of the population.
When researchers look at these outcomes by race, they see that mobility tends to be lower for black children than for white children almost everywhere.
One of the forces holding down economic mobility is physical mobility. People living in higher-income neighborhoods typically live near good schools and good jobs.
In lower-income areas, many people must spend long stretches of time getting to and from work. These commutes take them away from their families and make child care, among many things, more difficult:
Portion of work commutes one hour or longer, by metro area
In most of the country, only a small share of each metro area has to commute more than one hour to work.
But the share tends to be much higher in poorer communities.
In addition to the growth in inequality within metro areas, inequality across metro areas has also surged. A small number of areas account for a large and growing share of jobs, income, wealth, venture-capital funding and more.
One example: The largest and most prosperous metro areas, like New York and San Francisco, now attract an even larger share of college graduates than in the past. In some of the largest metro areas, like New York, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco, more than half of adults have a bachelor’s degree. In less populated areas, less than one quarter of adults often do:
These metro areas also have a larger share of the country’s jobs than in the past. Between 2010 and 2016, New York County — the borough of Manhattan — accounted for almost 2 percent of the nation’s employment growth, despite having only about 0.5 percent of the population:
In the largest metro areas, broadband internet access is close to universal. In smaller metro areas and rural regions, a sizeable share of the population often lacks it:
The same patterns show up with venture capital investment. More than 70 percent of it has recently flowed to only three states: California, New York and Massachusetts:
Cities are still the country’s most economically dynamic places. But they are also a microcosm of the extreme inequality that shapes so much of American life in the early 21st century.
Most areas are doing far worse than a small number of the most prosperous cities. And even within those prosperous cities, most residents are doing worse than the impressive headline statistics suggest.
David Leonhardt, a former Washington bureau chief for The Times, was the founding editor of The Upshot and the head of The 2020 Project, on the future of the Times newsroom. He won the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, for columns on the financial crisis. @DLeonhardt | Facebook
Yaryna Serkez (@iarynam) is a graphics editor for Opinion.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.