False. Both business and household surveys are part of every months "payrolls" report, the BLS actually names it's report "THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: - month year"
The surveys are different.
Businesses surveyed said (net) 93,000 postions were removed from payrolls which would no longer be filled or recruited. That's 93,000 fewer opportunities for the unemployed to find work.
However, the household survey (for August 2003) says that unemployment shrank by 157,000 (ie jobs still on payrolls were filled) and the civilian labor force shrank by 10,000 and therefore concluding 147,000 found work.
A further discussion can ensue about whether those 147,000 found good work or are "flipping burgers"
A person without a job who finds work is not "creating" a job. They're only going from unemployed to employed, but the job they filled previously existed. If that job had been eliminated, it would have appeared as a stat on the Payrolls report as 93,001st job eliminated.
There are three different stats (actually more) relating to work:
misleading reports claiming that the number of jobs held by Americans declined by nearly 100,000 in August.
Here is the misleading misunderstanding - "jobs held by Americans".
If it read "jobs available to Americans" the rest of the sentence would be correct.
Lastly, the weekly ui claims reports are people who have lost their jobs (413,000 last week) and in the past ('90's) almost 400,000 of those would have found comparable replacement work. In the past that only took a few weeks and they found good or better jobs. These days it is taking 21 weeks and longer for those who do find work and they're having to take less pay or benefits or both.
Somewhat less than 400,000 people unemployed is about the normal weekly turnover. Below that, more people find work than lose work (growth), above that more people stay on unemployment and are out of work than find work (contraction).
Despite what some on the thread say about the "lazy dolts" many who are currently not looking for replacement career jobs are likely living on savings, assets sales such as their homes, and/or they may be "marginally attached" workers as defined at www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm.
As things get better they (the "lazy dolts") will come back into the job market. I believe that may actually drive up the unemployment rate as more career jobs are created and the "lazy dolts" start looking for career jobs again and quit their marginal employment.
Similar for two-income households. The unemployed spouse may start looking as things get better -- unless they learned that given taxes the net increase to household income may not be worth it.
As far as the mainstream press is concerned we know that they are 90 percent Democrat hacks posing as "journalists" but millions of Americans have had their lives wrecked by IMO a sea change due to globalization. It's going to take a long time to adjust IMO. The unemployed are not people trying to make President Bush look bad.