Yes, ghost jobs exist, but the label is used in different ways. In the strict sense, it is a posting presented as a real, current opportunity even though the employer does not intend to hire for that position at that time. That is different from a legitimate role that has been paused, a talent pool explicitly meant for future openings, or an evergreen position kept open because the organization repeatedly hires for the same job.
This distinction matters because the most frequently cited “ghost job” figures do not measure the same thing. Some come from surveys of hiring managers, others from internal recruiting-platform data, and others infer hiring intent from posting behavior. There is therefore no single universal percentage that can be applied to the entire labor market — and these sources do not support a solid estimate of prevalence in Brazil.
What counts as a ghost job — and what does not
| Situation | What it means in practice | How to treat it |
|---|---|---|
| Active opening | There is a position, budget and an ongoing recruiting process intended to fill the role. | Normal application priority. |
| Paused opening | The role was real, but budget, reorganization or an internal decision stopped the process. | Not automatically a “ghost job”; ask whether there is a planned restart. |
| Talent pool | The company collects resumes for future opportunities without necessarily having an immediate vacancy. | Legitimate when clearly disclosed; it should not be mistaken for current hiring. |
| Evergreen opening | A continuous posting for jobs with recurring hiring, such as high-volume operations or ongoing expansion. | It may stay open for a long time without being deceptive. |
| Potential ghost job | The ad looks like a specific, immediate opening, but there is no real intent to hire now, the job has already been filled, or the posting is kept live only to collect resumes or signal growth. | Warrants more verification before investing heavily in a long application or tests. |
What the research actually measures
Available studies and industry reports agree on one point: postings without a real current hire do exist. They differ, however, in definition and method.
1. Hiring-manager survey: stated intent
In May 2024, ResumeBuilder.com reported surveying 1,641 hiring managers involved in recruitment. The study found that 40% said their companies had posted a fake job in the previous year and that roughly three in ten companies had fake postings active at the time. Reasons included appearing open to outside talent, signaling growth and keeping resumes for future use. The methodology itself says that 649 managers completed the full survey after indicating that their company had posted a job it did not intend to fill. That makes the finding useful evidence that the practice exists, but it should not be converted into “40% of all job postings are fake.” Source: ResumeBuilder.com.
2. Internal ATS data: posting classification
Greenhouse, a recruiting platform, stated in its 2024 State of Job Hunting report that in a typical quarter, 18% to 22% of jobs posted on its platform were classified as “ghost jobs.” The indicator matters because it comes from operational data rather than candidate perceptions alone. At the same time, the public page does not describe the classification rule in enough detail for the percentage to be treated as a universal market measure. It reflects one platform and its customer base. Source: Greenhouse.
3. Process outcome: a job closed without a hire
Ashby analyzed more than 22,000 jobs from January 2021 through December 2024. For 2024, it reported that 82% of openings in its customer data were filled and 18% closed without a hire. Within the no-hire group, 5.5% were paused, 1% reached an offer without a hire, and 3.5% had no reason recorded. Among companies with 50 or more employees, 97.5% of jobs moved at least one candidate into an active interview stage. The methodological point is crucial: a job that ends without a hire does not prove that there was never an intent to hire. Source: Ashby.
4. Model-based inference: signals of likely hiring intent
A 2024 academic preprint using Glassdoor data and a language-based classifier estimated that up to 21% of ads could be ghost jobs. Because the paper infers intent from observable characteristics of postings, the result depends on the model and is not the same as directly verifying, company by company, whether a requisition had budget and approval. It is complementary evidence, not a definitive count of nonexistent openings. Source: arXiv.
Why this should not be confused with official job-openings statistics
Online postings are often confused with official vacancy statistics. In the United States, for example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ JOLTS program does not simply count website ads. For a position to be counted as a job opening, the BLS requires that a specific position exist with work available, that it could start within 30 days, and that the employer be actively recruiting outside the establishment. The official definition is in the JOLTS FAQ.
In 2026, the BLS also published an analysis addressing the misconception that JOLTS overcounts openings by copying online postings: the survey collects data directly from establishments and does not use job-board listings as its primary source. Finding old, duplicated or suspicious online ads therefore does not mean the same distortion is automatically present in official job-opening statistics. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
An old posting alone is not enough to call a job a ghost
Posting age is a useful clue, but a weak one when it stands alone. On LinkedIn, for example, a job can remain open until it is manually closed or automatically closes after six months; a closed job can also be reposted and then appear as a new posting. “Open for a long time” and “recently reposted” therefore do not, by themselves, reveal the employer’s current intent. Source: LinkedIn Help.
The same applies to silence. Hiring processes can slow because of application volume, budget changes, vacations, approvals or redesign of the role. Indeed, in its explanation of how it addresses the issue, recognizes ghost jobs as a legitimate concern but stresses that silence does not prove a posting is fake, and it points to verifiable employer information, a recent posting date, a role-specific description and defined qualifications as positive signals. Source: Indeed.
How to assess whether hiring is really active
There is no foolproof test for an outside candidate. The best method is to combine independent signals and increase the level of verification as the cost of applying rises.
1. Check the job on the company’s own website
If you found the posting on an aggregator or social network, look for the same role on the employer’s careers page. Compare the title, location, team, work arrangement and, if available, requisition number. Absence from the company site does not prove the role is dead because employers use different channels, but a clear match is a favorable signal.
2. Look for recruiter activity — without treating it as a guarantee
LinkedIn says its “Actively recruiting” label may appear when there is recent recruiting activity such as responsiveness to applicants and InMail outreach. The platform may also show “Actively reviewing applicants” when the recruiter has reviewed one or more applications in the previous two weeks. These indicators increase confidence that activity exists, but their absence does not mean the job is inactive: some hiring happens outside the platform and not every posting is eligible for the labels. Source: LinkedIn — active recruiting and LinkedIn — hirer responsiveness.
3. Evaluate how specific the posting is
An active opening usually explains what the person will do, who they report to, which qualifications are truly required, where the work takes place and how the role is structured. Extremely generic copy, inconsistencies between location and description, requirements that appear pasted from unrelated jobs, or no operational context do not prove a ghost job, but they lower confidence.
4. Look at the history, not just the date
Check whether the exact role has been reposted repeatedly for months, whether people have recently announced joining that team, whether the manager publicly discusses expansion, or whether the employer removes the posting after normal recruiting cycles. Continuous reposting with no sign of hiring deserves more caution; high-turnover or continuously hired roles can still be legitimate.
5. Ask direct, neutral questions
- “Is this position approved and expected to be filled in the current hiring cycle?”
- “Is this a specific opening or part of a talent pool/continuous hiring program?”
- “What stage is the process in, and what is the expected interview and decision timeline?”
- “Is there a requisition number or a defined hiring team?”
- “If the process is paused, is there a date when it is expected to be reviewed again?”
These questions do not accuse the employer of running a ghost posting. They simply request information that helps the candidate decide how much time to invest.
Strong signals, weak signals and ambiguous signals
| Observed signal | Most prudent interpretation |
|---|---|
| Role appears on the official site with specific requirements and an identifiable requisition | Favorable signal of a structured process. |
| Recruiter is reviewing applications or provides a timeline and current stage | Favorable signal of activity. |
| Posting has been open for months | Ambiguous: it may reflect delay, evergreen hiring, scarcity of qualified candidates or failure to close the ad. |
| Job is reposted as “new” | Ambiguous: reposting also occurs in legitimate processes. |
| Company is hiring in other departments but does not respond on this role | Ambiguous: budgets and priorities vary by team. |
| Recruiter says there is no current opening and the posting is only for pipeline building, even though the ad presents an immediate vacancy | Strong signal that this is not a current hire. |
| The same posting reappears for long periods with no timeline, no defined team and no evidence of progress | Caution signal; reduce your investment until you get confirmation. |
A three-minute screen before investing in a long application
- Open the company website: confirm that the role exists on the careers page and that the details match.
- Check recency: look at the date, reposting history and recent recruiter activity signals.
- Read the description as an operational document: look for a team, responsibilities, location, requirements and concrete context.
- Classify the posting: active, paused, evergreen, talent pool or uncertain.
- Adjust effort: for an uncertain opening, avoid spending hours on tests or custom materials before confirming that the process is live.
What to do when a job looks uncertain
If the signals are mixed, you do not have to abandon the opportunity. The more efficient strategy is to lower the cost of trying. Apply with an appropriate resume, record the date and make one brief contact when there is a legitimate channel. If the company requests a lengthy case study, presentation, technical challenge or multiple asynchronous steps, first ask for a simple confirmation of the role’s status, timeline and scope.
It also helps to keep a basic application tracker. If the same job keeps being reposted without a response, you can recognize it and avoid repeating the same work. The goal is not to turn every old posting into a suspect; it is to allocate energy where there is more evidence of real hiring activity.
Conclusion: ghost jobs are real, but the label is not an automatic diagnosis
Available evidence supports the conclusion that employers and platforms do encounter postings with no immediate hiring intent. But the percentages vary because sources measure different things: managers’ admissions, internal ATS classifications, jobs that end without a hire, or signals inferred by models. A paused, evergreen or unfilled role is not, by definition, a ghost job.
For a candidate, the most useful question is not “does this job look old?” but “is there independent evidence that a specific position exists, a responsible team is identified, and a hiring process is moving now?”. The more expensive the application is, the more worthwhile it is to verify those three points before investing time.
