Why is it so hard to find a job now? Enter Ghost Jobs

Many tech workers now suspect that a significant share of job ads are “ghost jobs” — roles kept open or repeatedly reposted with little or no real intent to hire. Commenters describe postings driven by visa and green card rules, investor signaling, HR “pipeline” metrics, and internal politics, alongside a flood of low-quality or AI-generated applications that further degrade hiring. The result is a job market where even highly qualified candidates struggle to get responses, traditional application channels feel futile, and both labor statistics and wage signals are increasingly distorted.

What “ghost jobs” are and how common they are

  • Many posters report seeing large numbers of openings that never lead to interviews or hires, sometimes reposted for months unchanged; some guess rates as high as 20–50% in tech.
  • Others stress this phenomenon is not new (dot‑com bust era, long‑standing public‑sector “pre‑filled” roles).
  • Several are skeptical of the paper’s 21% estimate, arguing the methodology (Glassdoor + GPT‑4o + BERT) is weak and lacks validation or historical baseline.

Motivations for ghost or low‑intent postings

  • Immigration / visas (H‑1B, H‑2B, green cards, OPT):
    • Job ads run purely to satisfy legal “labor market test” requirements, with no intent to displace the existing visa worker.
    • For green cards (PERM), managers describe being required to post the current employee’s role, interview citizens, then often neither hire them nor proceed with the green card if a comparable citizen is found.
    • This practice is widely criticized as unethical or fraudulent; some argue it shows the H‑1B/green‑card system is structurally broken.
  • Signaling and optics:
    • Startups and big firms post “we’re hiring” to look healthy and growing to investors, customers, and employees, even under freezes or layoffs.
  • Pipeline / HR incentives:
    • “Always hiring” postings to “build a pipeline,” keep recruiters busy, practice interviewing, and be ready if headcount appears.
    • Some claim it’s mostly theater: recruiters rarely revisit old candidates.
  • Internal politics & compliance:
    • Roles advertised only to justify predetermined promotions, nepotistic hires, or internal transfers.
    • Middle management may post roles whose budget or scope then disappears mid‑process.

Impacts on job seekers

  • Widespread reports of:
    • Hundreds of applications with few or no responses; especially acute for senior, management, or older candidates.
    • Full interview loops ending with “we’re pausing or canceling the role” rather than a clear yes/no.
    • Deep frustration, burnout, and some leaving tech or traditional employment entirely.
  • Remote work and post‑2021 layoffs increase competition; candidates now compete with global talent, including ex‑FAANG and visa workers.

Hiring‑side perspectives

  • Hiring managers report:
    • Being flooded with low‑fit or AI‑generated resumes and even fake candidates, making triage noisy and error‑prone.
    • Heavy reliance on ATS keyword filters; many good candidates are filtered out, and warm referrals or internal champions dominate.
    • Strong bias toward specific tech stacks and “ready‑made” skills; little appetite for training.

Immigration, wages, and legality (highly contested)

  • Some argue H‑1B/OPT workers are systematically underpaid, tied to employers, and used to suppress wages; others respond that law requires “prevailing wage” and that data don’t show broad suppression.
  • Debate over whether ghost/visa‑driven postings and preference for visa holders violate anti‑discrimination law; some link to recent enforcement actions but acknowledge proof is hard.
  • Various reform ideas surface: auctioning H‑1Bs to highest salaries, higher wage floors, automatic green cards for long‑term workers, or stricter, centralized labor‑shortage tests.

Alternative explanations and skepticism

  • Several contend that the main reason jobs feel scarce is macro conditions: higher rates, broad hiring freezes, and elevated bars, not just ghost jobs.
  • Others warn against confirmation bias: many “ghost” experiences may be disorganized recruiting, internal headcount changes, or simple rejection, which candidates can’t see from outside.

Proposed mitigations and tools

  • Suggestions include:
    • Requiring public reporting of openings vs hires, or linking to a position’s posting history.
    • Treating willful fake postings as fraud or labor theft with meaningful penalties.
    • Community ratings for companies in job boards (including HN “Who’s Hiring”).
    • New candidate‑centric tools that track which postings actually advance applicants and deprioritize repeated reposts.