Thread on how decisions are only as good as the information on which they are based and the pernicious effects of bad, if not outright falsified, information. This is going to spring off a discussion of ghost jobs. Get your caffeine conveyance beverage of choice and let's get it.
There is an ever growing problem with the posting of ghost jobs. What is a ghost job? A ghost job is a job posting for a job that does not actually exist. The company that posts that job is not hiring for that position. The company is using the job listing for other reasons.
Back in the pre internet days, there was a nasty trick that law firms would pull. A law firm would post an ad for a job (secretary, paralegal, receptionist) and the address would be a PO Box. That was called a blind listing as the name of the firm wasn't given.
The firm wasn't hiring. What the firm was doing was seeing if any of the firm's current employees sent in a resume for this supposed job. If so, that employee would be fired for disloyalty.
With technology, it is now simplicity itself to post a fake job listing. Just put it up on any one, or all, of the major job sites. List it on the employment section of the company's own website. The costs are very low, especially now with AI generated job postings.
Here's an article from August, 2024 discussing the rise of ghost job listings.
That article contains some very interesting information. See screenshots below. cnbc.com/2024/08/22/gho…
Now, I dither on whether these listings should be called scams or fraud. What they are is an outright lie to the public that the job listing is real. It is being posted by the company with full knowledge by the company, but not the public, that the position doesn't exist.
The more interesting is the second screenshot about how in five years it went from 80% of job listings being real to 40%. In other words, it went from nearly certain that the job listing was for a job that existed to fairly likely that the job was fake. That is astounding.
If that information is accurate, that means that people applying for jobs have a less that 50% chance of applying for a job that exists. And there's no easy way for the public to know which of those jobs are real and which are not.
This destroys the ability of the job seeker to know if the problem is with the job seeker or not. This isn't even about brushing up on interviewing skills. People aren't getting to the interview stage. How is someone to know if the problem is resume and cover letter?
Presume rant here on having to SEO your resume to get past the computer scan for key words before even getting to a human. How is a person to know if the resume even got to that step? If 60% of job listings are fake, how on earth is a job seeker to know how to tailor a search?
It is, however, more pernicious than that. Why are ghost job postings on the rise? There are multiple reasons given by the companies doing this. One of the main ones that is given is that so the company looks like it is growing. As I keep saying, that's just fraud.
Another reason somewhat mirrors the blind posting reason: to scare current employees that their job is being replaced so you better shut your mouth and work all those hours and not ask for a raise.
And then there's the macro issue: all those ghost job postings make the job market look far more robust than it is. Presume rant here about the initial headlines about job growth and then a year later oh wait no, it was actually a downward revision of 818,000 jobs. Our bad.
The discussion of public policy matters is annihilated when the information about the underlying matter is utterly unreliable. Take the H1B fight. We, company, cannot find a US employee! Well. Is that job you posted a real one or not?
When it is impossible to know if the information is accurate, it is impossible to make an accurate decision that is based on that information. That, in turn, makes it not a decision, it makes it a pure guess. Or pure implementation of preferred policy alone.
The dangers of this should be obvious. Just get a job, there's so many out there, and employers cannot fill all those jobs they have listed! Really? Is that really true? Or is it all a lie? Here. Have a red panda. /fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵Thread will contain the following: a link to the 2022 Jay report; screenshot of the summary list of recommendations; screenshots of each recommendation. I will make no comments on any of the recommendations. My only comments are in the next two tweets as to why I'm doing this.
There is multiple statements that there is no need for an additional inquiry in the UK as the Jay report was issued in 2022 and all that is needed is to implement the recommendations. What is not included is a link to the Jay report and what those recommendations are.
It is a trivial technical matter to include those links. Yet those who are paid to provide political commentary and those who are paid to write news articles do not do so. Fine. I will. See below.
🧵There is, and has been for decades, an utter crisis of accountability in nearly all kinds of institutions on every level of society. The dangers of this should be obvious. Yet, those who are in positions of authority act as if that scent wafting up from their actions is roses.
My absolutely DNA level loathing of the administrative state stems, nearly wholly, from the accountability issue. When matters are determined by legislation, at least the public can look and see how their elected representative voted and respond accordingly.
When significant matters are left to "The Secretary shall" it results in people, whose names are made unknowable to the public, even though their names can be known, making significant determinations without any negative consequence for the harms of those determinations.
🧵 No one wants to work hard and no one is loyal to their employers is going around again and, since I am who I am as a person, let me see if I can break down how people are defining those terms. Go, fetch a snack and a drink, and then let's get it.
No one wants to work hard. Okay, what is meant here by work hard? Look the 80/20 rule has been around probably as long as people have been (you don't think don't work don't eat is in the Bible for funsies, do you?). That doesn't appear to be the issue.
From what I can gather, becasue heaven forfend that people actually define their terms, work hard is being used here for saying people do not want to work in excess of 40 hours a week, do not want to be available 24/7, do want to use all their vacation/sick/PTO time.
🧵 The H1B argument contains within it a fundamental dispute that is not apparent yet very important, namely, that the de facto manner in which it is applied violates the compromises made to pass the legislation de jure. This applies to many matters *koff* Motor Voter *koff*
Laws represent the compromises made to pass the law. In the H1B case, the compromise was between those who wanted an easier way to hire foreign workers legally and those who were concerned about the effect on domestic work force.
In the context of H1B, the compromise was the requirement that the employer be required to attest that no US employees were available and that the H1B employee would be paid at least the prevailing wage in the industry.
This was originally passed in 1982. The debt limit has been raised or suspended every time it has been reached.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31…
This is the Immigration and Nationality Act, originally passed in 1954, amended numerous times since then. The link is to the USCIS page which contains a compendium and links to the relevant sections.
🧵On immigration, original sources, de facto repeal, and the inability to even begin reaching conclusions if people will not accept the legitimacy of previously negotiated compromises. Get your caffeine conveyance of choice, you're going to need it.
And. Here. We. Go.
I decided to find the source of there are 1.2 million people in the US with final orders of deportation that are not in custody. I've seen this number thrown around and, per usual, the articles saying this provide no cite, let alone a link, to the original source of that number.
After some digging (presume rant about how search engines are utterly broken here), it's from here. The ICE Fiscal Year 2023 Annual Report.
The best way to review is to click to read the report and look at the pdf.ice.gov/features/2023-…