# Real-Time Inequality

- **DOI:** [10.1016/j.jpubeco.2026.105701](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2026.105701)
- **Rating:** Strong (3.9 out of 5)
- **Verdict:** Monthly national-income distributions fill a concrete measurement gap, but validation against model-derived annual files leaves monthly precision incompletely established.
- **Framework version:** v5.10
- **Pipeline version:** v0.4
- **Evaluation date:** 2026-11-03
- **Evaluation page:** https://www.nabu.science/paper/10.1016%2Fj.jpubeco.2026.105701

## Key claims

1. our methodology accurately predicts growth during downturns.
   - Support: Supported
   - Type: Primary finding
   - Basis: recession backtests support predictive performance against annual DINA files, with acknowledged group-specific errors
   - Location: Section 5.3, Results
2. Our monthly estimates track the annual tax-data-based statistics well for all groups, including for the top 1%
   - Support: Supported
   - Type: Secondary
   - Basis: wage-share comparisons support annual tracking, while the QCEW calibration window remains unclear
   - Location: Section 5.1, Figure 3 discussion
3. the post-Covid period was characterized by significant wage growth at the bottom of the distribution—a break from the trend prevailing since the early 1980s—but also at the very top, with the middle of the distribution experiencing no gains
   - Support: Tentative
   - Type: Secondary
   - Basis: fine monthly differences lack uncertainty bands and direct monthly validation
   - Location: Section 6.2
4. Overall, the average pretax income of Black adults relative to white adults is lower in 2025 (45%) than in 1989 (52%).
   - Support: Supported
   - Type: Secondary
   - Basis: the temporal comparison depends on survey-matched racial information rather than directly observed race in tax records
   - Location: Section 7.1
5. The share of wealth owned by the top 0.1% adults increased 2 points from the end of 2019 to the end of 2021, to reach 21.9%—then the highest level recorded in the post-World War II era.
   - Support: Supported
   - Type: Secondary
   - Basis: constructed wealth estimates support the increase, with broader concentration trends corroborated by the Distributional Financial Accounts
   - Location: Section 6.4

## Strengths

- **Monthly distributions bridge a documented measurement gap** The resource combines public sources into monthly microfiles covering national income and wealth, extending beyond wage-only trackers and aggregate growth statistics.
  - Dimension: contribution
  - Location: Introduction; Section 2.1
- **Historical backtests include recessions and relevant benchmarks** One- and two-year-ahead validation compares the pipeline with uniform growth and simplified rescaling. Separate recession results and discussion of tax-reform errors clarify where predictions perform differently.
  - Dimension: methodological rigour
  - Location: Section 5.3; Tables A1–A3
- **Public documentation supports replication and continued use** The paper describes program structure, licensing, execution instructions and a microfile codebook, alongside a regularly updated public website.
  - Dimension: application pathway
  - Location: Introduction; Appendix D

## Limitations

- **Annual validation leaves monthly precision incompletely established** Comprehensive backtests assess annual growth against model-derived annual DINA files. They do not directly establish the precision of fine monthly differences, and released estimates lack uncertainty bands.
  - Dimension: methodological rigour
  - Location: Sections 5.1 and 5.3; Section 6.2
- **Component contributions remain only partially isolated** The rescaling-only comparison tests the combined benefit of distributional adjustments, not the separate effects of employment adjustment, wage-source blending, CES extension and transfer modeling.
  - Dimension: methodological rigour
  - Location: Sections 4.2–4.4; Section 5.3; Table A3
- **Statistical wording exceeds the scope of tests** The introduction describes predictions as significantly less biased, although the reported Diebold–Mariano test evaluates squared forecast errors. Broad improvement language also requires the next-9% exception disclosed in footnote 18.
  - Dimension: reporting
  - Location: Introduction; Section 5.3; footnote 18

## Reliability checks

Caveats (4 of 4 checks).

- **Results check:** Noted. One reported value does not reconcile, but the key claims do not rest on it.
  - Minor reporting notes (1):
    - Descriptive: "timeliness (estimates are available online within a month)" (Section 2.2) vs "our estimates of quarterly growth by social group are published one month after the initial estimate of GDP" (Section 3.2). Combining the approximately one-month initial GDP release lag with the stated additional month gives roughly two months after quarter-end for full quarterly group-growth estimates, rather than a universal one-month release. → Conclusion holds
- **Reporting and transparency:** Noted. The paper supplies replication instructions and public data and code locations, but prints two different GitHub account paths without identifying a canonical repository.
  - Data availability: declared · Code availability: declared
- **Reference integrity:** Clean. 32 of 32 checkable references verified
  - 44 references in manuscript
  - 12 have no canonical index record — counted, but not index-checkable
  - 1 reference confirmed by manual review
  - References not verified automatically are resolved manually within 24 hours.

## Post-publication record

- **Status:** Clean
- **Summary:** No retraction or expression of concern found in Crossref (includes Retraction Watch).
- **Last checked:** 2026-11-03