What is economic mobility?

Economic mobility measures the likelihood that someone born into one income level will move to a different income level as an adult. Upward mobility means a child born into a low-income family ends up in a higher income bracket. The landmark Opportunity Insights research by Raj Chetty found that where you grow up has an enormous impact on your lifetime earnings — often more than your education level or family structure.

Which states have the best economic mobility?

States in the Upper Midwest and Mountain West consistently show the highest upward mobility: Utah, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Iowa, and Nebraska. These states share common traits: lower income inequality, better schools, more stable family structures, higher social capital, and lower segregation. The Southeast — particularly Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and South Carolina — has the lowest upward mobility.

Economic Mobility by State: Where You're Born Matters More Than You Think (2026)

Research shows that your zip code may matter more than your work ethic when it comes to moving up the economic ladder.

What the Data Shows

Economic Mobility: Key Findings (Opportunity Insights / Raj Chetty)

Finding	Data
America’s mobility rate	A child born in the bottom 20% has a 7.5% chance of reaching the top 20%
Geographic variation	This ranges from 4% (some Southern counties) to 16% (some Midwest metros)
The “Great Gatsby Curve”	Higher inequality → lower mobility
Impact of moving	Children who move to high-mobility areas before age 13 earn ~$4,000/year more as adults
Neighborhood effects	College attendance rates vary from 20% to 80% across neighborhoods in the same city

State Rankings: Upward Mobility

Expected Income Rank for Children Born at the 25th Percentile

Higher number = better mobility (children from low-income families end up earning more as adults).

Rank	State	Expected Rank (out of 100)	Category
1	Utah	46.2	High mobility
2	Minnesota	45.1	High mobility
3	North Dakota	44.8	High mobility
4	South Dakota	44.5	High mobility
5	Montana	44.0	High mobility
6	Iowa	43.8	High mobility
7	Nebraska	43.5	High mobility
8	Vermont	43.2	High mobility
9	Wyoming	42.8	High mobility
10	Wisconsin	42.5	High mobility
11	New Hampshire	42.3	High mobility
12	Kansas	42.0	Moderate-High
13	Idaho	41.8	Moderate-High
14	Massachusetts	41.5	Moderate-High
15	Washington	41.3	Moderate-High
—	National Average	40.0	—
41	Georgia	37.5	Low mobility
42	Tennessee	37.2	Low mobility
43	Kentucky	36.8	Low mobility
44	Arkansas	36.5	Low mobility
45	Alabama	36.0	Low mobility
46	South Carolina	35.8	Very low
47	North Carolina	35.5	Very low
48	Louisiana	35.2	Very low
49	Mississippi	34.5	Very low
50	District of Columbia	33.0	Very low (extreme inequality)

Metro Area Rankings

Best Metros for Economic Mobility

Rank	Metro Area	Expected Rank at 25th Percentile	Key Traits
1	Salt Lake City, UT	46.8	Low inequality, strong community ties
2	San Jose, CA	46.5	Tech economy, high investment in education
3	Minneapolis, MN	45.5	Strong schools, low segregation
4	San Francisco, CA	45.0	High-wage economy
5	Seattle, WA	44.8	Tech economy, education investment
6	Madison, WI	44.5	University town, low poverty
7	Boston, MA	44.0	Education hub
8	Denver, CO	43.5	Diversified economy
9	Portland, OR	43.0	Strong working class jobs
10	Des Moines, IA	42.8	Low inequality, affordable

Worst Metros for Economic Mobility

Rank	Metro Area	Expected Rank at 25th Percentile	Key Traits
1	Charlotte, NC	33.2	High segregation, uneven schools
2	Atlanta, GA	33.5	Extreme sprawl, segregation
3	Indianapolis, IN	34.0	Low social capital
4	Raleigh, NC	34.2	NC’s overall low mobility
5	Memphis, TN	34.5	High poverty, segregation
6	Jacksonville, FL	34.8	Low investment in education
7	Columbus, OH	35.0	Inequality within the metro
8	Milwaukee, WI	35.2	Extreme racial segregation
9	Detroit, MI	35.5	Deindustrialization, segregation
10	Baltimore, MD	35.8	Concentrated poverty

What Drives Mobility: The Five Factors

Factors Most Correlated With Upward Mobility

Factor	Correlation Strength	High-Mobility States	Low-Mobility States
Income inequality (Gini coefficient)	Very strong (negative)	Low inequality (UT, MN)	High inequality (MS, LA)
Racial/economic segregation	Very strong (negative)	Low segregation	High segregation
School quality	Strong (positive)	Higher spending, better outcomes	Lower spending, worse outcomes
Social capital (community engagement)	Strong (positive)	High civic participation	Low civic participation
Family structure (% two-parent homes)	Strong (positive)	Higher rates	Lower rates

US vs Other Countries

Intergenerational Earnings Elasticity (Lower = More Mobile)

Country	Elasticity	Interpretation
Denmark	0.15	Very high mobility
Norway	0.17	Very high mobility
Finland	0.18	Very high mobility
Canada	0.19	Very high mobility
Australia	0.26	High mobility
Germany	0.32	Moderate mobility
Japan	0.34	Moderate mobility
France	0.41	Moderate-Low mobility
United Kingdom	0.50	Low mobility
United States	0.47	Low mobility
Italy	0.48	Low mobility
Brazil	0.58	Very low mobility

The US has among the lowest economic mobility of wealthy nations — despite a cultural narrative of “anyone can make it.”

Probability of Moving from Bottom 20% to Top 20%

Country	Probability
Denmark	14.4%
Canada	13.5%
United Kingdom	9.0%
United States	7.5%
“Perfect mobility” would be	20.0%

Race and Mobility

Expected Income Rank for Children Born at 25th Percentile, by Race

Race/Ethnicity	Expected Adult Income Rank	Difference from White
White	45.0	—
Asian American	51.0	+6.0 (higher)
Hispanic	40.5	-4.5
Black	32.0	-13.0
Native American	33.0	-12.0

Black-White Mobility Gap by State

State	White (25th percentile) Expected Rank	Black (25th percentile) Expected Rank	Gap
Minnesota	48.0	30.0	18.0
Wisconsin	47.5	29.5	18.0
California	44.0	36.0	8.0
Texas	42.0	33.5	8.5
New York	43.0	32.0	11.0

Even the highest-mobility states have large racial gaps in economic mobility.

What Improves Mobility: Policy Evidence

Intervention	Evidence of Impact	Example
Moving to higher-opportunity neighborhoods	+$4,000/year income boost (if before age 13)	Moving to Opportunity experiment
Early childhood education (pre-K)	13% higher earnings as adults	Perry Preschool, Abecedarian studies
Reducing school segregation	Significant positive effects on income	Research on desegregation orders
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)	Increased intergenerational mobility	Natural experiments across states
Affordable housing in mixed-income areas	Improved school outcomes, income	LIHTC research
Mentoring programs	10-20% income improvement	Big Brothers Big Sisters research