The rise of ghost jobs is becoming a serious issue in the labor market, where job listings are posted but never intended to be filled. These positions, often referred to as “ghost jobs,” create a false impression of available opportunities. Studies indicate that a significant portion of job listings—up to 22%—are actually ghost jobs. In some cases, especially in the UK, this number has been reported as high as 34%. These misleading listings contribute to confusion, misdirection, and wasted time for job seekers who apply for positions that may not even exist.

The frustration for job seekers is clear: time spent tailoring resumes, preparing applications, and even attending interviews often leads to no response or result. It’s not because the applicant is unqualified, but because the job they applied for wasn’t real in the first place. This disconnect between advertised opportunities and actual hiring practices only adds to the growing disillusionment in the job market, as applicants are left with no clarity or closure.

Ghost jobs also distort the overall picture of the labor market. Job seekers believe opportunities are plentiful, while policymakers and businesses see inflated vacancy numbers that don’t reflect actual demand. The result is a labor market that feels busier than it truly is, masking the realities of employment opportunities and affecting how businesses, policymakers, and applicants understand the state of the workforce.

Why Do Employers Post Ghost Jobs?

Employers have various reasons for posting ghost jobs, even if they never intend to hire for them right away. One key reason is that companies use these listings to build a pool of candidates for future openings. This practice, known as “resume harvesting,” allows employers to collect resumes for positions that may open up later. However, it often leads to confusion, as candidates waste time applying for jobs that won’t be filled in the near term.

Another reason for ghost job postings is that some companies use them as a form of public signaling. By keeping job listings active, businesses can project an image of growth, even when their actual hiring needs or budgets are limited. This tactic is often employed to maintain an outward appearance of expansion or strength, especially in competitive industries, without actually needing to hire anyone.

In addition to these intentional practices, ghost jobs can also result from poor internal communication. Sometimes, positions remain posted online long after they’ve been filled or canceled simply because the internal process of updating listings was overlooked. This administrative oversight creates unnecessary confusion and contributes to the overall problem of ghost jobs, leaving job seekers uncertain about which positions are actually available.

The Impact of Ghost Jobs on Job Seekers and Labor Data

For job seekers, ghost jobs lead to wasted effort and frustration. Candidates invest significant time and resources into applying for positions, only to find out that the job never existed or was never truly available. This cycle of false hope and disappointment can lead to job seekers becoming discouraged, especially those who face additional barriers to employment. The trust in the hiring process erodes, making it harder for them to stay motivated and engaged in future job searches.

Photo Credit: Unsplash.com

On a larger scale, ghost jobs also distort labor market data. Official figures about job openings and vacancy rates are often based on the number of job listings available at any given time. However, when these listings are fake or outdated, they create an inflated picture of demand. For example, in August 2025, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 7.2 million job openings, but only 5.1 million hires were made. This disparity highlights the fact that not all of these job postings reflect real hiring needs, which complicates efforts to accurately assess the health of the job market.

These distortions in labor market data can affect everything from economic policies to business strategies. Policymakers rely on vacancy data to understand workforce trends, but ghost jobs can make it appear that the labor market is more dynamic than it is. The gap between real job demand and inflated vacancy numbers can lead to misguided decisions about workforce development and economic planning.

The Effects of Ghost Jobs on Employer Branding and Trust

The long-term effects of posting ghost jobs can significantly damage an employer’s brand and reputation. When companies consistently advertise roles that are never filled, it creates a perception of dishonesty or unreliability. Job seekers share their experiences on job boards and social media, warning others about companies that waste their time. In today’s world, where transparency and authenticity are highly valued, ghost jobs can quickly erode goodwill and damage a company’s standing in the labor market.

Trust is essential in any hiring process. When candidates believe a job posting is genuine, they are more likely to engage with enthusiasm, applying for positions they are qualified for. However, once candidates discover that a job listing was false or outdated, their trust in the employer is shattered. This loss of trust can lead to fewer applications for future positions, making it more difficult for companies to attract the best talent for real openings.

For companies, the cost of eroding trust with potential candidates can outweigh any short-term benefits of posting ghost jobs. If job seekers perceive an organization as misleading or deceptive, they may be less likely to apply for legitimate roles. In the long run, this damage to an employer’s brand can have lasting consequences, making it harder to fill positions and creating a negative image in the broader talent pool.

How Can Employers Tackle the Ghost Job Problem?

To address the issue of ghost jobs, employers and recruitment platforms must prioritize transparency and accountability. One practical solution is for recruitment platforms to verify job listings and confirm that positions are actively hiring. Platforms can also introduce features that clearly distinguish between live positions and roles that are part of a future pipeline or talent pool. Clear labeling can help prevent job seekers from wasting time on roles that may never be filled.

Employers also need to take responsibility for their job postings. If a position is no longer open or if it’s part of a long-term hiring strategy rather than an immediate need, companies should either remove the listing or explicitly state the purpose of the job post. Being upfront about the status of job openings can help rebuild trust with job seekers and reduce the number of ghost jobs circulating in the labor market. Clear and honest communication about available positions can make the recruitment process smoother for both employers and candidates.

The key question remains whether labor markets can evolve to address ghost jobs without sacrificing the flexibility that employers need in building talent pipelines. While employers may rely on ghost jobs to manage perceptions or gather resumes, reducing the prevalence of misleading listings is essential for restoring confidence in the job market. By improving transparency and communication, employers can help create a more reliable and trustworthy hiring environment that benefits both job seekers and businesses alike.

The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has been a cornerstone of U.S. climate research since its establishment in 1960. For decades, NCAR has been instrumental in advancing our understanding of climate science, weather forecasting, and disaster preparedness. With its supercomputing facilities and collaborations with universities and international institutions, NCAR has shaped the field by providing critical data and tools for climate modeling.

This shift, marked by the decision to dismantle NCAR’s Boulder headquarters, has sparked discussions among scientists, policymakers, and local communities about the future of U.S. climate research. The transition is seen by some as an opportunity to redistribute resources, but others worry that it could lead to fragmentation in the scientific community, especially as the U.S. faces growing climate challenges.

NCAR’s Mesa Lab, perched above Boulder, has been more than just a research facility—it has been an iconic symbol of the scientific community’s collective efforts to tackle climate-related issues. As the physical location prepares to close, many are questioning how the U.S. can maintain its leadership in climate science without a central hub for collaboration and infrastructure.

Impact of NCAR’s Closure on Climate Research

The announcement of NCAR’s dismantling has raised concerns about the future coordination of U.S. climate research efforts. While officials from the National Science Foundation (NSF) assure that key activities, including weather forecasting and supercomputing, will be relocated to other institutions, the loss of a centralized research center is a significant change. NCAR has long served as a leader in providing climate data and modeling, which have been used to predict hurricanes, floods, wildfires, and other extreme weather events.

As NCAR’s functions are redistributed, experts are cautious about the potential impact on the effectiveness of climate models. These models are crucial for disaster preparedness and public safety, informing both local and national government responses to extreme weather. Without a central hub like NCAR, ensuring smooth coordination across different institutions could become more challenging, potentially leading to delays in critical data sharing and analysis.

Furthermore, the transition could disrupt ongoing research projects and collaborations that rely on NCAR’s vast network of datasets. The center has served as a key platform for universities and international researchers, allowing thousands of scientists to access tools and resources that support their climate studies. With this infrastructure no longer in place, it’s unclear how these projects will be handled in the future.

Scientific Community’s Response to NCAR’s Restructuring

The announcement to dismantle NCAR has prompted a strong response from the scientific community. Many researchers are concerned about the potential disruption to their work, particularly those involved in long-term climate projections and studies on climate change. The transition could result in the loss of important datasets, making it harder to maintain the continuity needed for accurate climate predictions.

Photo Credit: Unsplash.com

Scientists have expressed concerns about the fragmentation of research efforts, as climate modeling is one of the most complex areas of atmospheric science. NCAR’s centralized location allowed for more efficient data sharing and collaboration among researchers. As the responsibilities shift to other institutions, some fear that the lack of a unified platform could slow the progress of ongoing studies and affect their long-term outcomes.

The closure of NCAR’s Boulder headquarters also represents a symbolic loss for many researchers who have relied on the facility for decades. The Mesa Lab, designed by architect I.M. Pei, has been a renowned location for scientific inquiry, and its closure could leave a void in the scientific community, particularly for those who view the site as a hub for knowledge exchange and innovation.

Economic and Community Concerns in Boulder

The dismantling of NCAR has significant economic and community implications for Boulder, Colorado, where the center has been a vital part of the local economy and identity. NCAR’s presence has attracted researchers, scientists, and professionals from across the country and the world, contributing to the city’s reputation as a hub for scientific innovation. The loss of this institution could affect local businesses and the broader economy, which has long relied on the intellectual capital generated by NCAR’s work.

Local officials in Boulder have expressed concerns about the impact on jobs, especially given the number of employees who work at the NCAR facility. With its research and development teams working in various fields of climate science, the potential relocation of these functions to other institutions could lead to layoffs or disruptions to the local workforce. Moreover, the closure of the Mesa Lab could undermine the city’s standing as a center for scientific collaboration, affecting its long-term prospects as a key player in U.S. and global research initiatives.

While Boulder may lose a key economic anchor, the broader implications for climate science remain to be seen. Some observers believe that the redistribution of resources and research functions could present new opportunities for other institutions to take on leadership roles in climate science. However, careful planning will be required to ensure that research efforts remain aligned and efficient during this transition.

The Future of U.S. Climate Research

As the U.S. faces increasing climate risks, the need for robust climate research and disaster preparedness is greater than ever. NCAR has long been a leader in developing the models and tools necessary for forecasting extreme weather events, and its contributions to climate science have been critical for shaping public policy and international climate agreements. The decision to dismantle its Boulder headquarters raises important questions about how the U.S. will adapt its research infrastructure to meet future climate challenges.

While the transition away from a centralized hub could lead to a more fragmented approach to climate research, it is also possible that new institutions will emerge to take on leadership roles. The redistribution of NCAR’s functions could foster innovation, with new players bringing fresh perspectives and capabilities to the field. However, this will require careful coordination among federal agencies, academic institutions, and private sector partners to maintain the continuity of critical climate research.

Ultimately, the shift in U.S. climate research underscores the need for continued investment in scientific infrastructure that can support both long-term climate modeling and immediate disaster response. How the U.S. navigates this transition will be crucial in determining its ability to address the growing challenges of climate change, including the management of extreme weather events and the development of sustainable solutions for the future.

The dismantling of NCAR marks a significant turning point for U.S. climate research, with profound implications for the scientific community and the broader public. While the shift in infrastructure could lead to disruptions in research continuity, there is also potential for innovation as new institutions step forward. The challenge lies in ensuring that climate science remains effective and that the U.S. continues to play a leading role in addressing the global impacts of climate change. As we move forward, the question remains: how will this restructuring impact the future of U.S. climate science and its ability to tackle emerging environmental challenges?