Jacob Zuma. Photo: Pan-African News Wire File Photos (flickr)

Jacob Zuma, South Africa's newly elected president, sure has his work cut out for him.

Zuma came into power just before the country announced that its economy is experiencing it's worst recession in 17 years. The country is also faced with the challenges of high unemployment — nearly 22 percent — and about a quarter of the population lives in poverty.

But the leader of Africa's most influential country says he's determined to turn this situation around.

In his first state of the nation address Zuma ambitiously promised to create 500,000 jobs by the end of the year. Zuma also committed to a new era of fiscal discipline, saying that "In the face of the economic downturn, we will have to act prudently — no wastage, no rollovers of funds — every cent must be spent wisely and fruitfully."

In order to survive this recession, Zuma needs to follow through on his promises. The New York Times quotes Harvard economist Dani Rodrik on the importance of job creation for South Africa: "If you don’t get these people in the work force, you’ll lose them forever to lives of distress."

Poor and out-of-work South Africans are placing a lot of hope in Zuma's pledge to create jobs. Interviewed by the Times, Josephine Nontando Mahlangu, an unemployed mother, reacted to Zuma's speech with some optimism: "Maybe Zuma will change everything the way he’s promised."

Tina in Philly makes her own laundry detergent and cuts washcloths out of old towels. Lisa in New York pays for everything in cash and leaves her card at home so she isn't tempted to use it if she doesn't really need to.

These helpful tips are a sign of the times, and contributed by readers of Living with Less, a mini-site created by the New York Times that is dedicated to sharing "the human side of the global recession." People post their recession-related tips, which range from the obscure to the obvious, as well as share their photos and stories.

More than 700,000 unemployed workers could see their benefits run out before the end of the year. Congress more than doubled unemployment benefits last year to 59 weeks in order to prevent this from happening. But with 4.1 workers per available job, it's harder now than ever for people to find work.

History tells us that the numbers are likely to get much worse — even after the recession ends. In the two previous U.S. recessions (1990-91 and 2001), unemployment continued to rise up to a year after economic recovery began.

So when can we expect the economy to improve? The National Bureau of Economic Research says recessions end when economic activity bottoms out. Bernard Baumhol, an economist with the Economic Outlook Group, thinks it's going to take some time before Americans see unemployment decline:

What comes next, I'm afraid, will be the mother of all jobless recoveries. While we may emerge from recession from a statistical standpoint later this year, most Americans will be hard-pressed to tell the difference between a recession and a recovery the next 12 months.

Economist David Resler compares recovery to a boxing match: "Even if you win the fight, it's not going to feel as good when you get out of the ring as when you went in."

The recently passed economic stimulus provides for up to another 20 weeks of unemployment benefits. But nearly a quarter of unemployed workers have now been out of work for at least six months. If that trend worsens, unemployment benefits are bound to expire for thousands more.

So how do these workers cope after their unemployment benefits run out? Some rely on food stamps and other social programs for help. Many live off of savings or help from family members; some even move in with them. Some are patching together part-time jobs, while still others see their situation as an opportunity to learn new job skills.

Most, however, simply want to find a steady job — any job. Pittsburgh resident Sterling Long echoes these sentiments. "I got no pride as long as the people in this house eat, have hot water — that's all I need."

(New York Financial Press video)

Recession-related domestic violence is on the rise due to increased unemployment and financial strain on families. Photo: Cappry Leiva (flickr)

The country's economic indicators may be falling, but incidents of domestic violence are rising.

Hotline calls, shelter visits, and domestic violence-related crimes are all up significantly, according to recent reports ranging from Wisconsin to Rhode Island. Domestic-violence shelters in each of Oklahoma's two largest cities, Oklahoma City and Tulsa, to list just one example, are fully occupied and having to turn women away.

Job loss and declines in income add even more strain on violent relationships. A study on recent domestic-violence homicides in Massachusetts found that “limited access to services for victims and unemployment for batterers” were key risk factors of abuse.

And women often feel trapped in abusive relationships during tough economic times. They're likely to feel they'd be unable to financially support themselves, according to Toni Troop, a spokeswoman for Jane Doe Inc., a coalition of organizations against domestic violence. Plus, if an abuser is out of work, "there is more opportunity [for him] to be present" at home, she says.

Karen Oehme, director of the Institute for Family Violence Studies at Florida State University, tells the Pensacola News Journal that it's "not uncommon for abusers to keep victims economically enslaved, seizing paychecks and denying all access to money. When that income shrinks during hard times, the victim becomes even easier to control."

At the same time, funding for domestic violence shelters and programs are a victim of the recession. This is true in Florida, where the Department of Children and Families' George Sheldon oversees the abuse hotline for the entire state. "Florida's domestic violence centers are over capacity and are faced with turning victims away," making the situation “the worst I've seen in years.”

"The economy is not causing domestic violence," says Dawn Reams, director of Bridges Domestic and Sexual Violence Support in Nashua, New Hampshire, "but it definitely influences it."

A call center in India. New U.S. policies against outsourcing jobs overseas will hurt India's IT sector the most. Photo: David Robinson (flickr)

In spite of the global recession's painful effects on most of the world's economies, India has managed to stay stable. The country even expects its economy to grow by 5 percent this year. However, this prediction came before President Obama announced that his administration would be cutting tax breaks and refusing bailout money for companies outsourcing jobs overseas.

Rising unemployment in the U.S. has renewed the political and economic debate over shipping jobs abroad. More than 1,000 U.S. firms that have outsourced jobs abroad are being criticized for taking jobs away from Americans. Countries like India — which gets more than 60 percent of its outsourcing work from U.S. businesses — will likely be hit the hardest by the Obama administration’s protectionist approach to reviving the U.S. economy.

President Obama also announced a hiring ban on foreign workers for companies receiving federal bailout money. Of the 65,000 H1-B work visas that the U.S. issues annually, 21,667 have been for Indian citizens who mostly join the information technology industry. These non-immigrant visas are granted to educated and skilled foreign workers.

But the U.S. is not alone in adopting policies against outsourcing jobs and limiting foreign workers. In Persian Gulf countries like the United Arab Emirates, millions of Indians who are employed in the construction and banking industries have been laid off and forced to return home. In the United Kingdom — where Indians are one of the most prevalent immigrant groups — the government has announced plans to potentially limit foreign workers to sectors of the economy that have documented labor shortages.

New policies against hiring foreign workers in the U.S. may have a long-term impact that policymakers are not anticipating, according to a study by Duke and Harvard researchers. With increased job opportunities in places like India and China, more than 100,000 foreign workers could leave the U.S. for jobs in their home countries. The study found that many Indian professionals in Silicon Valley have already left, and predicts many more will leave to start businesses in India.

This is bad news for the long-term economic recovery of the U.S. because nearly half of Silicon Valley start-ups, including Google, were started by immigrants, the lead Harvard researcher tells BusinessWeek. This long-term “brain drain” will mean that “when we start recovering ... the people we need are going to be in India and China,” according to the researcher, Vivek Wadhwa.

The U.S. has historically welcomed immigrants and their innovative ideas. A reversal of policy could prove to be very harmful — hurting economic growth and limiting the expansion of key industries.

"Recesson commuter special." Photo: Ed Yourdon (flickr)

Despite the gloom-and-doom media coverage of the recession, certain industries are still doing well or even thriving. For example, discount retail stores like the Dollar Tree and Family Dollar have significantly benefited from the economic downturn, doing strong business with bargain-hunting shoppers feeling the pressure from these cash-strapped times. Dollar Tree has recently seen a 60-percent gain in its shares — an impressive 6.8 percent gain from last year’s — with its fourth quarter earnings reaching $1.39 billion.

Other lower-priced retailers are finding similar success: Wal-Mart is doing extraordinarily well, particularly with rising sales of frozen food and food storage items. In comparison, higher-end stores like Macy's, Abercrombie & Fitch and JC Penney continue to suffer big drops in retail spending by consumers. Wal-Mart's success is a good example of how people's lifestyle changes are influencing their purchases, as more people choose to stay at home rather than go out to eat at restaurants — with the notable exception of McDonald's — and limit their shopping to what they need rather than what they want.

Small-scale businesses and entrepreneurs are also doing well. The New York Times reports that certain niche manufacturers are still doing good business, as the demand for specialized products, such as body armor for soldiers in Iraq or high-end audio speakers, is still strong.

The New York Times also reports that some small-business entrepreneurs are going strong, particularly in the health care industry. MEDILINQ, a company that negotiates discounted medical care for its low-income clients, reports great business this year. As one staffer remarked: “We’re looking at having a big year this year. Economic hard times are good opportunities for us.”

Other seemingly recession-proof industries include video games and condoms, all inexpensive ways to stay entertained at home. And, despite a move away from pricier restaurants and high-dollar date nights, dive bars and movie theaters are still going strong.

As the recession continues and new unemployment claims continue to rise, it should be interesting to see which industries continue to thrive with a growing population of increasingly-selective consumers.

Despite rising unemployment, average hourly wages went up 4 percent in the past year. Photo: James Yu (flickr)

It's tough finding a job in this economy. There have already been 3.6 million job losses since the start of the recession. So would you believe that hourly wages have risen almost 4 percent in the past year?

How can this be? According to an economic theory called "adverse selection," employers are better off increasing wages rather than cutting them. Cutting pay often prompts the most productive workers to look for employment elsewhere, leaving the company with the laziest, most unproductive workers. Higher wages are also good for employee morale. This same wage phenomenon occurred during the Great Depression.

Not all companies are subscribing to "adverse selection" theory — Hewlett-Packard and FedEx are planning to cut worker pay. But as the saying goes, a happy worker is a productive worker, and as the New Yorker notes, productivity is key to a healthy economy.

In the latest issue of Vanity Fair, economist Joseph Stiglitz makes a simple point that historians everywhere will cheer: In order to craft the future economy, we need to really understand just what went wrong with the current one. His review of the five economic decisions that have gotten the U.S. to its present state is a must-read for anyone affected by the current recession (read everyone).

What I found interesting? Stiglitz doesn't blame what many on the right consider the usual suspects. He doesn't blame former-President Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act which ensured that banks made home mortgage loans to low income communities, and he doesn't hold Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac responsible for the credit melt-down, as they were "late to the subprime game."

Instead he concludes, "The truth is most of the individual mistakes boil down to just one: a belief that markets are self-adjusting and that the role of government should be minimal."

If Stiglitz is right, the current economic data indicates that the consequences of our long-held belief to the contrary will be quite painful.

The current global recession will undo a 20-year trend of fewer and fewer people living in abject poverty, according to the World Bank's Year in Review 2008 report. The reversal is due to high food costs and sluggish growth, which has caused the poverty rate to increase by about 1.5 percent this year in urban parts of East Asia, South Asia, the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa.

Forecasts indicate that strong growth may return to some developing countries by 2010, but not quickly enough for the millions currently hungry and unemployed.

Our economy is shrinking, inflation is increasing, and it looks like it's time to tighten our belts and settle down for the worst. But were the times we are leaving really so great to begin with?

For the first time since we've been paying attention to such numbers, the median family income (from 2000 to 2007) has actually decreased during a period of economic growth. Real median family income more than doubled from the late 1940s to the late ’70s. It has risen less than 25 percent in the three decades since.

According to New York Times writer David Leonhardt, "the larger point is still crucial: the modern American economy distributes the fruits of its growth to a relatively narrow slice of the population."

A responsible economy wouldn't allow this to happen. What's going wrong?

For the first time in more than five years, the average household income is declining in the U.S., reports the Financial Times.

Joseph Stiglitz, John Edwards and anti-war group MoveOn.org all blame the Iraq War for triggering a U.S. recession. While the connection is politically attractive to some, President Bush — and even some of his critics — argue that this simply isn't true.

When President Bush said last week that "spending in the war might help with jobs" and that "this economy is down because we built too many houses and the economy’s adjusting," even well-known Bush-basher Paul Krugman had to concede the point. In a blog post, he wrote, "Hate to say this, but he’s right."

Yesterday Foreign Policy took a look at who is expected to win and lose as a result of a falling dollar. You may be surprised that the United States appears on the winning list.