The bigger your paycheck, the greater your life expectancy, new research suggests. While the poor are at a disadvantage, the odds of living a longer life are better for less affluent people in certain parts of the country than others. 
 
 Stanford researchers analyzed more than one billion tax and Social Security records and report that there's an increasing gap in life expectancy between the richest one percent in the United States and the poorest one percent. For men, the difference in life expectancy is 14.6 years. For women, being in the top one percent means living an average of 10.1 years longer. 
 
 But the authors also found that it wasn't only about earnings. Where you live can also impact how long you live, especially if you don't have money, said lead author Raj Chetty, professor of economics at Stanford University. 
 
 The poor have a much higher life expectancy in prosperous urban areas like San Francisco and New York City, said Chetty. 
 
 "I would have thought these very expensive big cities, like New York City and San Francisco, for most poor would be stressful and would be places with poor health among the poor, but that's not at all what these data suggest," Chetty said. 
 
 Part of the reason might be due to local public health programs and policies. Those two cities were among the first to restrict tobacco and ban trans fats, for example. 
 
 In contrast, in more rural areas and some rust belt states such as Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Kansas -- including cities like Detroit -- life expectancy for the poor is especially low. 
 
 "The poorest men in America have a life expectancy comparable to those living in Sudan and Pakistan," Chetty said. 
 
 Meanwhile, the study showed that the richest men in America have a better life expectancy than any men in the world. Over the past 15 years, life expectancy climbed by 2.3 years for the wealthiest 5 percent of American men and increased nearly 3 years for the most well-off women. 
 
 Usually conversations about inequality in America address issues at the national level, Chetty said, but the new findings suggest more discussion needs to be happening at a local level where the disparities have a greater impact on health and lifespan. 
 
 "A lot of variations seem to be driven by health behaviors," he said, even when there is access to health care. For example, life expectancy is on the rise for the poor in Birmingham, Alabama, but in Tampa, Florida, the poor are on the downslide when it comes to life expectancy. 
 
 In an accompanying editorial in JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. J. Michael McGinnis of the National Academy of Medicine wrote that "community is powerfully associated with life expectancy." 
 
 McGinnis told CBS News, "The study suggests that, although employment conditions and levels of income inequality did not independently explain differences among communities in life expectancy, factors such as healthier behaviors, higher graduation levels, higher expenditure levels for government assistance -- issues related to supportive community cultures -- helped moderate the impact of the gap." 
 
 While it's been known for some time that higher incomes are linked with longer lives, McGinnis said the findings are helpful because they offer insights on how to help blunt some of the adverse health issues faced by Americans who are not affluent. 
 
 "The study suggests that a relatively few individual leaders committed to working together to strengthen community-wide attention and action on behalf of health of populations, might make a difference," McGinnis said. 
 
 The study results also suggest a revamp of Social Security and Medicare might be in order, said Chetty. As it stands, due to life expectancy differences, men and women in the top one percent are on track to claim Social Security and Medicare for 11.8 and 8.3 more years than men and women in the bottom one percent of the income distribution. ||||| SAN FRANCISCO — This city is full of parks that invite exercise and bike lanes that make commuting a workout. It's home to social services that tend the poor, and taxpayers who willingly fund them. Smoking is banned at restaurants and bars — as well as in workplaces, at bus stops, throughout public housing, at charity bingo games and even inside stores that sell tobacco. 
 
 These factors may help explain why the poor live longer in the San Francisco area than they do in much of the rest of the country. According to a large study published today about how income and geography shape life expectancies, a poor person living in the San Francisco area can expect to live about three years longer than someone making the same income in Detroit. That difference is equivalent to how much national life expectancies would rise if we eliminated cancer. 
 
 "If you think about the cancer comparison, having cancer is not just about having a shorter life. It's also about having an unhealthier life, a much lower quality of life," says Stanford economist Raj Chetty, the lead author of the study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Seven economists, from MIT, Harvard, the U.S. Treasury and McKinsey and Co., were co-authors. 
 
 Think about their new data as if the poor in Detroit get cancer and the poor in San Francisco don't. "Then," Chetty says, "you can see that this is a big deal." 
 
 The research, based on the tax and Social Security records of everyone in America between 1999 and 2014 with a valid Social Security number and earnings, gives the most precise look yet at a pattern that has long troubled health experts: In America, the richer you are, the longer you live. But what's especially striking is that the poor live even shorter lives in some places than others. They have longer life expectancies in affluent cities with highly educated populations, such as San Francisco, New York and Los Angeles. Among the 100 largest commuting zones ranked by the researchers, six of the top eight for low-income life expectancies are in California, a state with a strong safety net and a history of regulating where you light your cigarette or what comes from your car's tailpipe. 
 
 The poor live shorter lives in Las Vegas, Louisville and industrial Midwest towns, such as Gary, Ind. Geography also matters much more for the poor than the rich. The health behaviors of the wealthy are similar wherever they live. For the poor, their likelihood of risky behaviors such as smoking depends a great deal on geography, on whether they live in a place where smoking is common or where, as in San Francisco, cigarettes have been shunted out of view. 
 
 The findings pair with earlier research led by Chetty, using the same fine-grained tax data, that illustrates how crucial life outcomes — including economic mobility, adult earnings and now health — vary greatly with geography in America. 
 
 "It is as if the top income percentiles belong to one world of elite, wealthy U.S. adults," Nobel Prize-winning economist Angus Deaton writes in a JAMA editorial accompanying the new paper, "whereas the bottom income percentiles each belong to separate worlds of poverty, each unhappy and unhealthy in its own way." 
 
 Overall, the new study offers the most exhaustive account yet of the rich-poor gap in American life expectancy. The data reveal that life expectancies continuously rise with income in America: The modestly poor live longer than the very poor, and the super-rich live longer than the merely rich. 
 
 For men, the gap between the top and bottom 1 percent nationwide is nearly 15 years. For women, it's 10 years. And these disparities have widened since 2000. People in the top 5 percent have gained about three years of life expectancy. People at the bottom have gained almost nothing. 
 
 The economists don't have definitive explanations for the relationships they observe between income and health. It's not that more money alone buys better health. Poor health can lead to lower incomes, just as low incomes can lead to poor health. And it's hard to imagine, for instance, that the richest Americans can buy things that make them healthier that people who are just slightly less rich can't afford, says Harvard economist and co-author David Cutler. 
 
 But among the poor, the differences in what money can buy probably explain an important part of the longevity gap. 
 
 "At some point, it does become causal: You can buy better housing, you can buy better food," Cutler says. "You own a car that actually works, so you can drive to the grocery store more regularly." 
 
 But it's also true that the stress of poverty can have lifelong health consequences. 
 
 "An emerging body of science is showing that adversity itself will shorten your life span," says Nadine Burke Harris, a pediatrician in San Francisco and a founder of the Center for Youth Wellness, which tries to treat the role of toxic stress in undermining health in the city's poorest neighborhoods. Her patients, who deal with adversity from neighborhood violence to childhood abuse, come in with high rates of asthma and cardiovascular disease, or even repeated cases of uncommon autoimmune diseases. 
 
 Her health center — overwhelmingly funded by local philanthropy — is precisely the kind of resource that's harder to find outside of an affluent city like San Francisco or New York. 
 
 What's driving early death 
 
 Across the country, shorter life expectancies for the poor, measured at age 40, were most closely correlated with places that had lower exercise rates and higher rates of smoking and obesity. For both men and women, stretches of the industrial Midwest promised the lowest life expectancies. Some of the results also align with the findings of a recent Washington Post analysis of mortality rates that found deteriorating health, particularly for whites, outside big cities in rural America where unhealthy behaviors are on the rise. 
 
 Below is a map of where poor women live the longest and shortest across the United States. Poor men's life expectancies are mapped above. 
 
 Across these maps, places with high shares of college graduates, high population density, high home values and high government expenditures per capita were correlated with better life expectancies for the poor. In some ways, this finding is surprising: Health experts suspect that higher inequality may be connected to poor health. But the authors found little correlation between income inequality and life expectancy. And wealthy San Francisco, New York and Los Angeles, among the places in America with the widest income inequality, look here like the healthiest. 
 
 Burke Harris offers her own caveat to that finding: "Poor people only have better health status when they’re living in a wealthy environment if the people in that wealthy environment believe in investing in the safety net." 
 
 That is certainly true in San Francisco, a city with both private wealth and major public expenditures. To the extent that fostering health requires money — either to fund a clinic like Burke Harris's or to invest in parks and city services — San Francisco has it. 
 
 Rajiv Bhatia, the former environmental health director in San Francisco's Department of Public Health, points to other policies the city has pursued, such as universal preschool, paid sick leave and paid parental leave. These policies aren't aimed at shaping health behaviors in the same way that a smoking ban is, but they may well ease the stresses associated with poverty that affect health, too. 
 
 Policies like these, and New York's universal pre-K, are notably the result of more than the money needed to fund them. They're also the product of a particular idea about the role of government in supporting the poor and shaping behaviors linked to health. 
 
 "It's no coincidence that New York City banned trans fats," Cutler says. "New York is a very rich city. People there feel like, 'Look, socially it’s not doing anything for us, we know it’s harmful. Why not get rid of it?'" 
 
 New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg also famously tried to ban oversize sodas. He pushed for calorie labels on restaurant menus, higher taxes on cigarettes and tighter restrictions on buying them. He even issued an executive order trying to nudge city employees to take the stairs more. 
 
 Critics outside of New York called Bloomberg's public-health policies draconian, and less out-there ideas like expanding Medicaid have been met with public skepticism, too. But in the new research, New York City ranks as the place where the poor have the longest life expectancies, ahead of all the California cities. Life expectancies between the rich and poor there still vary widely. And it's still better to be rich in Detroit than poor in New York. But something about the environment there, as in San Francisco, is counteracting at least some of the massive national disparities by income. 
 
 Perhaps in highly educated cities people are savvier about health, Cutler suggests, more likely to advocate for smoking bans or to push doctors to adopt the latest medical advance. Or perhaps it's that more educated, wealthier cities also tend to be more politically progressive, believing in the power of government to make people healthier and to shape what are fundamentally personal decisions about lifestyle. New York and San Francisco also are more walkable and transit-friendly, factors that have been associated with health as well. 
 
 Burke Harris suggests there is a lot going on in San Francisco that the economists did not directly measure. "It’s the living wage," she says. "It’s the greening of the city, it’s the bike lanes, it’s the universal preschool. It’s all of these things that together add up." ||||| Rising income inequality has eroded the ability for American children to grow up to earn more than their parents, according to a new study from a team of researchers that could carry deep implications for President-elect Donald Trump's policy agenda. 
 
 The research from a group led by Stanford's Raj Chetty, and also including economists and sociologists from Harvard and the University of California at Berkeley, estimates that only half the children born in the 1980s grew up to earn more than their parents did, after adjusting for inflation. That's a drop from 92 percent of children born in 1940. 
 
 The fall-off is particularly steep among children born in the middle class, and for those born in several states in the industrial Midwest. 
 
 If policymakers care about giving more Americans a chance to out-earn their parents, Chetty said in an interview, "these results show, you have to care about inequality.” 
 
 Previously, Chetty's team studied a different measure of mobility: the ability of children to move up or down America's income ladder as they grow up, when compared to other Americans. The new research attempts, for the first time, to quantify so-called "absolute mobility," which people often associate with the American Dream: the odds of a child earning more as an adult than his or her parents earned at the same age. 
 
 The researchers say rising concentration of income among the richest Americans explains 70 percent of what has been a steady decline in absolute mobility from the baby boom generation to millennials, while a slowdown in economic growth explains just 30 percent. 
 
 That sort of mobility "is something that was a feature of the American economy for kids born around 1940, that baby boomer generation," said Nathaniel Hendren, a Harvard economist who is one of the authors of the study. "As we look forward, there’s just been a dramatic decline in that measure" - which, he said, runs parallel to a decades-long stagnation in earnings for typical American workers, even as earnings for the very rich have soared. 
 
 "If you don’t have that kind of widespread economic growth across the income distribution, it’s tough to grow up and earn more than your parents,” Hendren said. “This is a distinct reason to focus on inequality." 
 
 That finding suggests Trump's tax-cut plans would do little to improve economic mobility for struggling blue-collar families, even if they help accelerate growth, unless they are somehow able to deliver growth that is much more broadly shared by workers of all income levels. Independent analysts, though, predict the tax plans pushed by Trump in the campaign, and by Republicans in Congress, would benefit high earners disproportionately. 
 
 Trump did not make inequality a focus of his presidential campaign, but he appealed directly to the anxieties of workers who feel the economy is not delivering for them in the same way it did for their parents. The paper highlights several sources of those anxieties in the Trump coalition. 
 
 It finds barely 2 in 5 men born in the mid-80s grew up to earn as much, at age 30, as their father's did at the same age. It shows average rates of mobility falling particularly fast in Rust Belt states, most notably Michigan and Indiana. And it finds a much steeper drop in absolute mobility for the middle class than for the poor. (Other research suggests what young people earn early in their careers is a good indication of how much their earnings might grow over their lifetimes.) 
 
 The calculations come from a novel approach by the authors to marry data from anonymous tax records and detailed statistics on the distribution of income in the United States from the Census. Using those sources, the authors estimate the chances that a particular child will grow up to earn more than her or his parents. 
 
 “We’ve never had a good way of measuring" those changing odds for children to out-earn their parents, said Sean Reardon, an education professor at Stanford, who was not part of the Chetty team but reviewed the study. "This really quantifies it in a very elegant and thoughtful way, and an important way.” 
 
 The large decline in the past half-century remains steady even if they change how they calculate inflation over time, or take into account demographic shifts such as the changing size of U.S. households over time, or compare incomes across generations at age 40 instead of age 30. If added together, those tweaks could raise the odds of a child born in the 80s out-earning his or her parents to at least 2 in 3 - though that would still be substantially less than the odds for a child born in 1940. 
 
 "The paper provides really strong evidence that absolute mobility has fallen over time. It’s too pessimistic, though, to say that the American Dream is 'fading'," said Scott Winship, a visiting fellow who studies mobility at the Foundation for Research on Economic Opportunity, a think tank that studies market-based solutions for the poor and middle class. "Intergenerational advancement continues apace, but at a diminished rate." 
 
 The surge in inequality over the past half-century is well documented. New research this week, from economists Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, shows the bottom 50 percent of U.S. income earners only gained 1 percent in earnings from 1962 to 2014, after adjusting for inflation. From 1980 to 2014, they found, nearly 70 percent of income gains went to the top 10 percent. 
 
 Even knowing the data on rising inequality, Chetty said, the mobility researchers were surprised by their new findings. 
 
 “We thought mobility would be lower," he said. "We didn’t realize how much lower it would be. And we didn’t realize that the distribution of growth would matter more than the level of GDP growth.” 
 
 Other research supports Chetty, Hendren and their colleagues, who also include Stanford sociologists David Grusky and Maximilian Hell, Harvard sociologist Robert Manduca and Berkeley economist Jimmy Narang. Brown University economist Nathaniel Hilger, for example, has found a similar decline over time in absolute educational mobility - which is to say, the odds that an American child will obtain more education than his or her parents did. 
 
 Based on his work and the Chetty team's work, Hilger said, "I do believe that kids born after the 1930s are doing worse relative to their parents than kids born 1900-1930, and kids born in 1970 are not typically doing better than their parents in terms of educational attainment or income. It's closer to a coin flip than it used to be earlier in the century--now some kids do better than parents, and some kids do worse."
– A new study says America's wealthy live longer than its poor, which is hardly surprising. But it also says low-income people live longer in certain places—like affluent cities including New York and San Francisco, NPR reports. Why isn't clear, but lead study author Raj Chetty of Stanford University was surprised. "I would have thought these very expensive big cities ... for most poor would be stressful and would be places with poor health among the poor, but that's not at all what these data suggest," he tells CBS News. Media reports note that local health policies may have an effect (New York City and San Francisco banned trans fats and restricted tobacco use early on), and Chetty agrees that "thinking about policies that change health behaviors at a local level is likely to be important." The study's other findings highlight the crushing effects of inequality. By analyzing over a billion tax and Social Security records, the Stanford researchers found that the richest 1% of men live roughly 15 years longer than the poorest 1% of men. And in the 21st century, life expectancy has risen 2.3 years for the richest 5% of men and 3 years for the richest 5% of women, while the poorest 5% of Americans saw hardly any improvement. An overall three-year boost in lifespan, the Washington Post notes, is about the difference we'd expect to see from curing cancer. As Chetty puts it, "The poorest men in America have a life expectancy comparable to those living in Sudan and Pakistan." (One study says that eating like the Japanese will make you live longer.)