"Low-income residents in wealthy areas, such as New York City and San Francisco, have life expectancies significantly longer than those in poorer regions."
That's somewhat surprising. I wonder if the reverse holds - do rich people in poorer regions have shorter life expectancies than in richer regions?
New York City and San Francisco are also some of the most urban and mass transit-oriented areas of the US, which means walking is a default part of one's life instead of a leisure activity— getting through one's daily life means walking at least half an hour, and easily more.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/11/upshot/poor-new-yorkers-te...
Since two replies to this comment suggest the underlying cause might be " less toxic environments, better ecology (less polluted, less crowded areas - less infections, less harards, etc)" and " better health care", the answer is no.
According to the original paper, life expectancy in the lowest quartile "were not significantly correlated with access to medical care, physical environmental factors, income inequality, or labor market conditions."
Behavior has to be the biggest. If we look outside the US and populations known for longevity we see exercise and lower caloric correlations.
Looking at studies surrounding exercise, even simply walking 30 minutes every day leads to better quality life in terms of health including preventing cognitive decline. Exercise is also associated with preventing the shortening of telomeres which scientist believe are connected with aging.
Obviously rich could afford fresh, non-junk food, less toxic environments, better ecology (less polluted, less crowded areas with better water sources - less infections, less hazards, etc).
Mere environment matters a lot.
Update: What is wrong with that? Look how rich segregate themselves and where they used to live.
Also ask any sociologist or comparative historian.
That's somewhat surprising. I wonder if the reverse holds - do rich people in poorer regions have shorter life expectancies than in richer regions?