On paper, the American labor market is cooling from its historic 2022 peak. Yet, for the millions navigating the "ground-truth" of the search, the reality feels less like a cool-down and more like a systemic collapse.
While official job openings have declined to their lowest levels since 2020, Enhancv’s latest research suggests a darker reason for the chaos: the job market is being hollowed out by ghost jobs.
Our survey of 1,000 U.S. job seekers reveals that nearly half (47%) of the participants have applied to a role they later discovered never existed. This data points to the rise of performative hiring: a strategic weaponization of job boards used to signal growth to investors or extract competitive intelligence from an increasingly desperate talent pool.
Survey key takeaways
- 25% of surveyed candidates were lured into the interview phase—undergoing recruiter screens and multiple rounds—before realizing the role was a ghost.
- 37% of seekers are incurring out-of-pocket expenses, such as travel, childcare, and certifications, to pursue roles that were never open.
- Professionals with 8+ years of experience are the most likely to be targeted, with 51% of this cohort reporting direct encounters with phantom listings—the highest rate among any experience level.
- Over a quarter of candidates (27.2%) identified job age—listings active for 3+ months—as the most pervasive indicator of a nonexistent role.
- The crisis is most acute in high-competition sectors; 87.5% of professionals in marketing and advertising report encountering phantom listings, the highest rate across all surveyed industries.
2026 labor statistics vs. candidate experience
To understand the full scale of the phantom market, we must look at the divergence between official economic reporting and the lived experience of the workforce. While federal data tracks the volume of unfilled roles, Enhancv’s data tracks the intent behind them.
Official vacancies vs. deceptive hiring intent
| Sector | BLS job openings (Jan '26) | BLS actual hires (Jan '26) | Macro vacancy gap* | Enhancv ghost rate (perceived deception) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Information (Tech) | 192,000 | 102,000 | 46.8% | 85.7% |
| Finance | 371,000 | 212,000 | 42.8% | 66.7% |
| Professional and business services | 1,382,000 | 1,024,000 | 25.9% | 71.4% |
| Manufacturing | 402,000 | 298,000 | 25.8% | 82.6% |
| Education and health services | 1,595,000 | 802,000 | 49.7% | 63.7% |
*Gap calculated as the percentage of reported openings that did not result in a hire during the January 2026 reference period. Source: BLS JOLTS
Note that in professional services and manufacturing, the official vacancy gap is relatively low (~26%), yet candidate-reported ghosting is among the highest in the country. This suggests that in these sectors, the issue isn't a lack of hiring but a culture of performative recruitment—where roles are filled, but fake listings are kept active to harvest data or signal growth.
Our survey shows that certain industries have become massive hotspots for performative hiring, far outpacing the national average for deceptive practices. In these sectors, the "Apply" button has become a coin toss.
Top industries hit by phantom listings
| Sector | Ghosting encounter rate (%)* |
|---|---|
| Marketing and advertising** | 87.5% |
| Telecommunications and tech | 85.7% |
| Manufacturing | 82.6% |
| Business support and logistics | 71.4% |
| Retail and consumer durables | 68.9% |
| Finance and financial services | 66.7% |
| Agriculture | 65.7% |
| Healthcare and pharmaceuticals | 63.7% |
*Percentage of respondents within the industry who reported encountering a ghost job.
**While BLS data aggregates marketing under Professional Services, our granular analysis identifies the marketing field as the specific outlier for deceptive listings..
A market mirage: Why official data is lying
Economists point to low unemployment as a sign of health, but our analysis suggests the perceived market is roughly 25% smaller than official figures show.
We asked job seekers to estimate the density of the phantom market based on their recent search history.
Here are the findings:
- 21.5% of respondents believe that between 10% and 25% of the listings they encounter have no real intent to hire.
- 13.3% of seekers believe the problem is more severe, estimating that at least one out of every four jobs they see (up to 50%) is a ghost job.
- A cynical 9.4% of candidates believe the market is fundamentally broken, estimating that over half of all job listings are currently performative.
If these roles were simply "zombie" listings—forgotten ads gathering digital dust—they would be harmless. But our research reveals a more predatory trend: ghosting has become a high-engagement activity.
Companies are currently investing significant recruiter hours and manager time into roles that don’t exist. This looks like a deliberate strategy of labor extraction.
The point of no return
- 64% of candidates identify a ghost job almost immediately when their application is met with silence, while the role is instantly reposted.
- 8.5% are lured into an initial screening call before the lack of hiring intent becomes clear.
- 12.3% invest the significant time required for a first formal interview, only to discover the role is performative.
- A small but exhausted 4.2% are led all the way to the final round of interviewing before the "ghost" finally appears.
By attracting qualified talent into these phantom rounds, corporations can:
- Precisely gauge current market rates for specialized skills without the cost of a hire.
- Extract tool stacks, strategic approaches, and organizational insights from senior candidates under the guise of "technical evaluations."
- Use a warm pipeline of external talent as leverage to keep current employee salary expectations low.
Senior professionals are the main target of these practices.
When an individual with 10 years of experience discusses their approach to leadership, their previous company’s tool stack, or their salary expectations for a director-level role, they’re providing the kind of competitive benchmarking that consultants usually charge thousands for.
The numbers show a direct link between career longevity and the likelihood of being targeted by the hiring mirage:
Correlation between experience and deception
- People with 8+ years of experience are the most likely to report being targeted, with 51% encountering ghost jobs.
- This is a sharp contrast to entry-level candidates (less than one year), who reported a significantly lower encounter rate.
- Among the 411 senior-level respondents, 31% mentioned being asked for "consultative advice," "strategy decks," or "market intelligence" during the interview phase of roles they later realized were ghosts.
- In contrast, only 22% of junior candidates reported similar requests, as they were more frequently ghosted immediately after the initial application or screening.
While the time lost in these performative interviews is a significant professional burden, the impact often extends beyond the calendar and directly into the candidate’s bank account.
When searching for work costs cash
We’ve long assumed the only cost of a job search is time. Our data shatters that myth.
The “ghost tax” is a real financial burden, with 37% of candidates reporting direct out-of-pocket losses—ranging from travel expenses for fake interviews to premium job board subscriptions—while chasing nonexistent roles.
Regardless of the industry, 63.4% of candidates in the lowest income bracket ($0–$9k) experienced significant financial loss. For these job seekers, a performative interview turns into a drain on essential resources.
Top expense categories
- Travel and gas (17.8%): The most frequent expense, largely driven by candidates attending in-person interviews for non-existent positions.
- Paid test assignments (9.9%): Candidates are paying for certifications or software to complete technical evaluations that may ultimately serve as free labor or market research for the company.
- Childcare or eldercare (8.1%): The need to secure care to attend performative interviews adds a significant layer of financial stress to parents and caregivers.
Common red flags for job seekers
If phantom listings are becoming a permanent fixture of the market, candidates need a reliable way to filter them out. Our survey shows that job seekers are no longer taking new listings at face value.
Based on our survey of 1,000 professionals, here are the most common indicators that a job opening isn't real:
- Job age (27.2%): Listings that have been active for three months or longer are the biggest red flag. Most legitimate roles are filled or closed within 60 days.
- The rejection-repost loop (16.1%): Candidates report seeing a role reposted as "brand new" immediately after receiving a rejection email for the same position.
- Direct recruiter admissions (15.5%): Over 15% of seekers have had a recruiter explicitly admit they’re "not actually hiring" for the role during the interview process.
- AI-generated descriptions (14.2%): A growing number of candidates are flagging job posts that use generic, nonsensical, or bot-written language that fails to describe actual daily tasks.
- Hiring freezes (7.6%): Public news of company-wide layoffs or freezes while the company simultaneously lists "urgent" roles.
Companies will just have their ATS system* plug in a job and post it to LinkedIn or Indeed. From the outside world, it looks completely real, but when you actually apply, it never really goes anywhere. They're just posting it to show they are hiring because they get tax cuts.
Nick DeRose, recruiter
*As noted in Enhancv’s recruiter survey, an Applicant Tracking System (ATS)—the software used by most mid-to-large companies to manage recruitment—can be configured to automate these "evergreen" postings.
The data responses suggest that many of the red flags above are symptoms of growth signaling. In a high-interest-rate environment, companies use “empty” listings to project an image of health to shareholders, even when a hiring freeze is in effect. This allows them to build a massive database of candidates without the immediate intent—or budget—to hire any of them.
For the candidate, though, it’s a digital dead end.
The death of the social contract
The byproduct of this systemic deception marks a fundamental shift in the American workforce's behavior. We’re witnessing a silent strike where candidates are protecting their dignity by disengaging from the search.
It’s simple: candidates’ lived experience involves a relentless cycle of high-effort applications met with automated silence or rejection-repost loops. This disconnect has moved beyond mere frustration into an emotional fallout that respondents described as "soul-crushing."
The numbers reveal a workforce that’s actively retreating from the traditional search process:
- 24.2% of respondents have significantly reduced the number of jobs they apply to, shifting from active seeking to a defensive, minimal-effort approach.
- 12.1% of respondents have completely abandoned major job boards, citing them as "polluted" by phantom listings.
- In our open-ended feedback, terms like "gaslighting," "dehumanizing," and "a waste of human potential" appeared with alarming frequency.
When trust dies, the market stops functioning. This creates two critical risks for the broader economy:
- No talent mobility: When applying for jobs feels like a scam, high-quality talent stops moving. They stay in current roles they’ve outgrown because the cost of a fake search is too high. This creates a stagnant economy where the right skills never reach the right roles.
- Revenue risk: Deception is a poor branding strategy. Over 40% of candidates now actively avoid purchasing products from companies they suspect of ghosting. A tactic designed to save HR money is now actively costing the sales department revenue.
The result is a total erosion of the professional social contract. If companies refuse to hire honestly, candidates will stop applying in good faith. We are moving toward a low-trust economy where the friction of finding talent will eventually cost more than the "free" data companies are currently trying to extract.
Final thoughts
Our findings at Enhancv make one thing clear: the market is currently smaller, more expensive, and more deceptive than the official headlines suggest. Whether it’s the 87% of marketers facing a saturated field, the senior employees being harvested for intelligence, or the 37% of seekers paying a "ghost tax" out of their own pockets, the human cost is undeniable.
Methodology
This report utilizes a dual-layered research model to analyze the disconnect between official labor statistics and the lived experience of American job seekers.
- Candidate survey: In February 2026, Enhancv surveyed 1,000 U.S. professionals across all career levels. We tracked direct encounters with ghost jobs, out-of-pocket search expenses, and qualitative red flags encountered during the recruitment process.
- Macro-economic analysis: To identify the "market mirage,” we cross-referenced survey results against the January 2026 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) JOLTS report. By comparing the volume of official job openings to actual hires, we identified sectors where corporate growth signaling significantly outpaces real-world hiring intent.
Definitions:
- Ghost job: A listing with no immediate intent to hire (including roles used for data harvesting or pipeline building).
- Ghost tax: Direct financial losses (travel, childcare, software) incurred by seekers pursuing these non-existent roles.
About Enhancv
Enhancv is a global AI Resume Builder that helps job seekers create modern, recruiter-approved resumes and cover letters. The company combines career data, user insights, and expert guidance to make job applications more effective and human.
Make one that's truly you.
