←back to thread

391 points JSeymourATL | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
duxup ◴[] No.42136673[source]
>The trend could be due to the low marginal cost of posting additional job ads and to maintain a pipeline of talents. After adjusting for yearly trends, I find that ghost jobs can explain the recent disconnect in the Beveridge Curve in the past fifteen years. The results show that policy-makers should be aware of such a practice as it causes significant job fatigue and distorts market signals.

Very interesting.

I certainly have "gotten" what I thought was a ghost job. I went through the whole process ... they "wanted" to hire me. But didn't actually have a start date / couldn't actually hire me. For everyone involved though they seemed to be able to justify posting the job, interviews, because IMO, it made THEM look busy / effective.

The whole hiring people industrial complex seems oriented to be focused on the process of hiring (high fives for ever more complex hiring processes / delays) ... and not at all on the outcome (did we hire someone, were they good?).

It's the ultimate system where simply doing anything is "success" / and more processes rewarded, and there's almost no good measureless about outcomes for the company.

replies(5): >>42136736 #>>42136852 #>>42136874 #>>42137977 #>>42138597 #
nickfromseattle ◴[] No.42136874[source]
> because IMO, it made THEM look busy / effective.

A KPI in hiring is offers made / accepted. I don't think the HR team gets credit for reviewing applicants and running interviews that don't result in one/both of these.

replies(2): >>42137040 #>>42137193 #
1. coliveira ◴[] No.42137040[source]
This is simple to solve: just don't make too many offers, and complain that you "couldn't find talent".