3 ms·
My experience suggests that this theory is dead on. Less because companies are putting up more openings, and more because the meaning of "posting an opening" h
by Bartweiss 10y ago
My experience suggests that this theory is dead on. Less because companies are putting up more openings, and more because the meaning of "posting an opening" has changed in a way that causes overcounting.
When Verizon wants a floor-sales clerk, they're likely putting the opening up on Monster, Indeed, and several other sites besides. That's 5-6 "openings posted" for one actual job, and it's made even worse if they aren't quick to take down the postings (why bother? you just route the resumes to spam). 30 years ago, you were posting a single job in specific places, and job boards or newspaper ads would turn over 'naturally' if you didn't keep the posting active.
So I don't know how important it is, but I'm definitely assuming that postings are being multiply counted these days.
- wott 10y agoAnd what you mention is just a multiplication of posting of the same job post. But there is also the case that more and more work is subcontracted. So you can find posts that are slightly different but all refer to the same job position: 1 by the company where the job will take place, 4 by different subcontractors, and 3 more because 2 of the subcontractors have themselves subcontracted the job.
- Bartweiss 10y agoThis is a great point I had overlooked. I did once realize that I was interviewing for the same job twice, once as a contractor and once as a direct employee. Everyone had been sufficiently close-mouthed about the exact role that I got several phone interviews in before things came to a head. And I realize this is multiplicative, so it probably means every contractor and the original company are each putting up 2-5 postings for the same job.