"Osborne will say that the best way of safeguarding living standards is growth" (Miliband vows to get tough on zero-hours jobs, 9 September, 2013). However, the details of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research forecast (UK economy is expanding at the same rate as when coalition came to power, 7 September) show that, despite real GDP being 6% higher, real personal disposable income will be about 1% lower in 2015 than in 2010. The difference is partly explained by the UK's population growth, but the key point is that GDP is not the same as household income – which is what matters for living standards. Headlines should reflect what is happening to household real incomes, rather than the usually quoted GDP figures.
Professor Tony Atkinson
Oxford
On 9 September you published a number of pieces discussing new economic data indicating the possibility of recovery, and that this would only be a true recovery once wages started to rise.
My experience, through undertaking a great deal of market research throughout the recession, shows that most households are looking for an economic recovery to provide greater job security and certainty of income. This allows people to contemplate new expenditure, as they feel confident that there will be the money to pay for it. So, while extra money would obviously be good, this isn't the first priority.
Meanwhile, businesses are reluctant to engage in wage rises as high employment costs irrevocably increase a business's cost base to the detriment of corporate manoeuvrability – when times become tough then the only option becomes layoffs or closure. Instead, bonuses and other rewards are in place to share in the success of the employer, which can be varied in line with performance.
Given this. I find your underlying editorial assumption that wages must rise to demonstrate economic recovery shockingly naive, if not a bit old-fashioned. Germany has demonstrated that economic strength and sustainability come, in part, from wage restraint: wages there have fallen in real terms every year since reunification.
Today's reality is that if you want to earn more you must seek new skills or job progression, not expect more money for doing the same.
Simon Rowland
London
Karel Williams (Comment, 9 September) is right: our unbalanced economy means that London's continued good fortune does not represent a national recovery. There are persistent regional inequalities. As he says, labels are important. It's a shame therefore that he doesn't explicitly refer to other ways in which our economy could be perceived as "unbalanced", such as the size of financial services in relation to other sectors. Not only are these other meanings important in their own right for our understanding of the economy, we also need to be vigilant to political discourse on our "unbalanced economy" and proposals to "rebalance" it, such as HS2 (a project not referred to by Williams).
If HS2 really can help "rebalance" our economy (Letters, 9 September), it's essential that the public understands exactly how our current economy is "unbalanced". Politicians should not hide behind ambiguity.
Dr Alex May
Manchester