[luigi23]

But I don’t think this is something groundbreaking isn’t it? Similar to dating apps, when the pool is enormous It’s very cheap to keep the options open. With the automation and growing value of the personal data, everyone should keep that in mind when applying for a job. Also, I suspect there is a reason but the responders are too lazy or are too ashamed to provide it. My wild guess would be, as cited as before: this position has been allocated but it almost cost nothing to keep it open to farm data and to keep perception that the business is growing.

[ZoomerCretin]

> But I don’t think this is something groundbreaking isn’t it?

The vast majority of employment-related issues do not occur to elites and policymakers. These issues are completely invisible to them. Articles like this make real issues legible to the important people who are in a position to do something about it.

[nickpeterson]

Can't job listing sites just make the cost of each active listing a lot more expensive. If you want to list a job per month it's $10 bucks, but the next one is like $100, then $200, etc. Eventually holding open random speculative listings becomes expensive. If companies prove they hired people, then they're allowed to have more openings at the lower rate. Basically make a track record for hiring open up more cheap listings.

[supriyo-biswas]

There’s no incentive for the job boards to do that. Perhaps a model where candidates paid for access to the job board might fare better, as they need to prove their quality to candidates.

[nickpeterson]

Wouldn't the inventive be that jobs listed there are real and people pay attention to them?

[janalsncm]

It is generally be considered a foux pas to maintain a dating profile after committing to a romantic partner.

[baq]

Employers are polyamorous.

[janalsncm]

And most people are not. Which makes jobs dissimilar to relationships.

[namaria]

I think you mean faux pas